Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo
{"title":"在逆行肾内手术中重复使用一次性输尿管镜:一个新概念的出现?","authors":"Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo","doi":"10.4103/iju.iju_162_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.717).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.</p>","PeriodicalId":47352,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Urology","volume":"41 3","pages":"216-219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312838/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?\",\"authors\":\"Horacio Sanguinetti, Juan Guillermo Ruiz, Maximiliano Lopez Silva, Norberto Bernardo\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/iju.iju_162_25\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (<i>P</i> = 0.717).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"41 3\",\"pages\":\"216-219\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12312838/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_162_25\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/iju.iju_162_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reused disposable ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery: A new concept arises?
Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal lithiasis is widely used, with single-use ureteroscopes offering an excellent option. However, their high cost poses a challenge, prompting consideration of reusing disposable instruments. This study aims to compare stone-free rates (SFR) and complications between reprocessed disposable ureteroscopes and new ones in a multicenter cohort.
Methods: This prospective, observational, multicenter study included patients who underwent RIRS between May 2022 and May 2023 at three centers in Argentina. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 used a brand new disposable ureteroscope and Group 2 used a reprocessed disposable ureteroscope. Stone size, location, stone-free rate, postoperative complications, and subjective evaluations of deflection and vision were analyzed.
Results: Seventy-seven patients were included: 21 in Group 1 and 56 in Group 2. The average stone size was 10.9 mm in Group 1 and 8.6 mm in Group 2 (P = 0.0188). Stone location in the renal pelvis was 42% in Group 1 and 25% in Group 2 (P = 0.406). SFR were 71.4% in Group 1 and 73.2% in Group 2 (P = 0.999). No differences were found regarding the subjective assessment of vision and deflection as evaluated by the surgeons. Postoperative urinary tract infections occurred in 9.5% of Group 1 and 16% of Group 2 (P = 0.717).
Conclusions: Despite the larger stone size in Group 1, the stone-free rate and postoperative infection rates were similar between both groups. Reprocessing disposable instruments does not appear to affect the effectiveness or infection rate of RIRS.
期刊介绍:
Indian Journal of Urology-IJU (ISSN 0970-1591) is official publication of the Urological Society of India. The journal is published Quarterly. Bibliographic listings: The journal is indexed with Abstracts on Hygiene and Communicable Diseases, CAB Abstracts, Caspur, DOAJ, EBSCO Publishing’s Electronic Databases, Excerpta Medica / EMBASE, Expanded Academic ASAP, Genamics JournalSeek, Global Health, Google Scholar, Health & Wellness Research Center, Health Reference Center Academic, Hinari, Index Copernicus, IndMed, OpenJGate, PubMed, Pubmed Central, Scimago Journal Ranking, SCOLOAR, SCOPUS, SIIC databases, SNEMB, Tropical Diseases Bulletin, Ulrich’s International Periodical Directory