Advertisement

Identifying a Break in the Chain: An Analysis of Where Ureteroscope Damage Occurs in the Hospital Cycle

      Abstract

      Objective

      To assess the timing and variables associated with damage to flexible ureteroscopes (fURS) at our institution. Flexible ureteroscopy is an important modality in the treatment of benign and malignant conditions of the upper urinary tract. While the durability and versatility of fURS have improved considerably, repair costs remain high and time out of commission diminishes workflow. After purchasing new digital fURS, we studied how and when these instruments were being damaged.

      Materials and Methods

      Between September 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018, we performed leak testing on fURS both before and after use. We gathered intraoperative data related to the user, the surgical indication, and the associated tools used in all cases that employed a digital or fiber optic fURS. Categorical and continuous variables were analyzed to identify risk factors for intraoperative fURS damage.

      Results

      During the study period, complete data was gathered for 281 cases. Twenty-two fURS failed leak testing indicating an overall leak failure rate of 7.8%. Of these, 15 failed leak testing preoperatively indicating nonoperative damage occurring sometime during transport, handling, or sterile processing. The other 7 failures occurred during the procedures. No intraoperative variables were significantly associated with failures.

      Conclusion

      Our institutional leak failure rate is 8% (22/281). The majority of these failures did not occur during surgery. Of the 7 that occurred during surgery, larger stone burden and higher wattage showed mild association. Ongoing evaluation will target minimizing fURS damage outside of the operating room.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Defidio L
        • De Dominicis M
        • Di Gianfrancesco L
        • Fuchs G
        • Patel A
        Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures.
        J Endourol. 2012; 26: 1329-1334https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2012.0178
        • Traxer O
        • Dubosq F
        • Jamali K
        • Gattegno B
        • Thibault P
        New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones.
        Urology. 2006; 68 (discussion 280-281): 276-279https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.02.043
        • Tosoian JJ
        • Ludwig W
        • Sopko N
        • Mullins JK
        • Matlaga BR
        The effect of repair costs on the profitability of a ureteroscopy program.
        J Endourol. 2015; 29: 406-409https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0435
        • Pietrow PK
        • Auge BK
        • Delvecchio FC
        • et al.
        Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 784-788
        • Karaolides T
        • Bach C
        • Kachrilas S
        • Goyal A
        • Masood J
        • Buchholz N
        Improving the durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes.
        Urology. 2013; 81: 717-722https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.01.016
        • Semins MJ
        • George S
        • Allaf ME
        • Matlaga BR
        Ureteroscope cleaning and sterilization by the urology operating room team: the effect on repair costs.
        J Endourol. 2009; 23: 903-905https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0489
        • Carey RI
        • Martin CJ
        • Knego JR
        Prospective evaluation of refurbished flexible ureteroscope durability seen in a large public tertiary care center with multiple surgeons.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 42-45https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.022
        • McDougall EM
        • Alberts G
        • Deal KJ
        • Nagy JM
        Does the cleaning technique influence the durability of the <9F flexible ureteroscope.
        J Endourol. 2001; 15: 615-618https://doi.org/10.1089/089277901750426409
        • Carey RI
        • Gomez CS
        • Maurici G
        • Lynne CM
        • Leveillee RJ
        • Bird VG
        Frequency of ureteroscope damage seen at a tertiary care center.
        J Urol. 2006; 176 (discussion 610): 607-610https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.03.059
        • Sung JC
        • Springhart WP
        • Marguet CG
        • et al.
        Location and etiology of flexible and semirigid ureteroscope damage.
        Urology. 2005; 66: 958-963https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.05.033
        • Afane JS
        • Olweny EO
        • Bercowsky E
        • et al.
        Flexible Ureteroscopes: a single center evaluation of the durability and function of the new endoscopes smaller than 9Fr.
        J Urol. 2000; 164: 1164-1168https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67133-9
        • Karl Storz
        Damage Report for Flexible Ureteroscopes, University of Kentucky 9/2017 to 6/2018.
        University of Kentucky, 2019
        • Legemate JD
        • Kamphuis GM
        • Freund JE
        • et al.
        Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a prospective evaluation of longevity, the factors that affect it, and damage mechanisms.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.03.001
        • Khan F
        • Mukhtar S
        • Marsh H
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the pressure leak test in increasing the lifespan of flexible ureteroscopes.
        Int J Clin Pract. 2013; 67: 1040-1043https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.12149
        • Multescu R
        • Geavlete B
        • Georgescu D
        • Geavlete P
        Improved durability of flex-Xc digital flexible ureteroscope: how long can you expect it to last?.
        Urology. 2014; 84: 32-35https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.01.021
        • Seto C
        • Ishiura Y
        • Egawa M
        • Komatsu K
        • Namiki M
        Durability of working channel in flexible ureteroscopes when inserting ureteroscopic devices.
        J Endourol. 2006; 20: 223-226https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2006.20.223
        • Marchini GS
        • Torricelli FC
        • Batagello CA
        • et al.
        A comprehensive literature-based equation to compare cost-effectiveness of a flexible ureteroscopy program with single-use versus reusable devices.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2019; 45: 658-670https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0880
        • Hennessey DB
        • Fojecki GL
        • Papa NP
        • Lawrentschuk N
        • Bolton D
        Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.
        BJU Int. 2018; 121: 55-61https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14235
        • Martin CJ
        • McAdams SB
        • Abdul-Muhsin H
        • et al.
        The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 730-735https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085