The comparison of efficacy and safety of reusable and disposable-flexible ureteroscopes: case-control matching results of multicentric RIRSearch study group

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorŞahin, Mehmet Fatih
dc.contributor.authorDayısoylu, Hulusi Sıtkı
dc.contributor.authorYazıcı, Cenk Murat
dc.contributor.authorSıddıkoğlu, Duygu
dc.contributor.authorÇınar, Önder
dc.contributor.authorAkgül, Murat
dc.contributor.authorÇakır, Hakan
dc.date.accessioned2025-05-29T02:54:02Z
dc.date.available2025-05-29T02:54:02Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractPurpose: Today, disposable flexible ureteroscopes are increasingly used in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) as an alternative to reusable flexible ureteroscopes. The comparison of the safety and effectiveness of these two devices is still a matter of debate. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of disposable-flexible ureteroscopes vs reusable flexible ureteroscopes in RIRS. Materials and methods: The study included 1165 RIRS cases, and the patients were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of cases with reusable RIRS, 838 in total, while Group 2 consisted of disposable RIRS cases, 327 in total. Due to significant differences, case–control matching was performed, and subsequently, there were 229 patients in both groups. The demographic and clinical data of patients, stone characteristics, surgical data, perioperative and postoperative complications, postoperative urinary tract infection rate, duration of hospitalization, and stone-free rates (SFR) were analyzed and compared. Results: No demographic differences were observed between the two groups after case–control matching. While operative time, SFR, and postoperative infection rates were similar between the groups (p > 0.05), fluoroscopy (p = 0.001) and hospitalization (p = 0.029) times were statistically significantly lower in the disposable ureteroscopy group. Perioperative and postoperative complications were also lower in this group (p = 0.018 and p = 0.001 respectively). Conclusion: Our research indicates that single-use ureteroscopes are a strong alternative to reusable ureteroscopes, demonstrating similar efficacy and reduced complication rates in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2025.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11255-025-04545-8
dc.identifier.issn0301-1623
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105005219513
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-025-04545-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/29896
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Urology and Nephrology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_Scopus_20250529
dc.subjectDisposable ureteroscope
dc.subjectEfficacy
dc.subjectRetrograde intrarenal surgery
dc.subjectReusable ureteroscope
dc.subjectSafety
dc.titleThe comparison of efficacy and safety of reusable and disposable-flexible ureteroscopes: case-control matching results of multicentric RIRSearch study group
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu