Advertisement

Breakage Costs in Flexible Ureteroscopy: Digital vs. Fiberoptic Modalities

Published:November 15, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.10.027

      ABSTRACT

      Objective

      To compare the maintenance costs of digital flexible ureteroscopes (DFU) versus fiberoptic flexible ureteroscopes (FFU) to understand the long-term financial impact associated with breakage in a flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) program.

      Methods

      Data for breakage of FFU and DFU at an academic institution from 2019 to 2021 were obtained from our vendor (Karl Storz) and analyzed by month. Correlation test was used to evaluate significant differences in number of procedures, number of breakage events, breakage rates, and repair cost per month. Cumulative analyses were utilized to examine the number of procedures before failure (time to failure - TTF) and repair costs per procedure (RCpP).

      Results

      We performed a total of 2,154 f-URS, including 1,355 with FFU and 799 with DFU (P<.001). Although we found a higher number of breakage events in FFU (n=124) than DFU (n=73) (P<.001), the overall breakage rate was similar, 9.9% vs. 8.8%, respectively (P=0.86). On cumulative analysis, both modalities reached the same TTF plateau (11 cases) after 18 months. After 400 cases, the RCpP for DFU was 1.25 times higher than for FFU (P=0.04).

      Conclusion

      Overall, we found no difference in overall scope breakage rates between DFU and FFU. Although there was no difference in TTF over time, at the beginning DFU displayed considerable higher durability, leading to lower RCpP. Furthermore, DFU's endurance leveled off to FFU over time, resulting in higher RCpP after 400 cases. This finding may be explained by the presence of renewed scopes after repair.

      Abbreviations:

      DFU (digital flexible ureteroscope), f-URS (flexible ureteroscopy), FFU (fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope), PGY (post-graduate year), RCpP (repair cost per procedure), suFU (single-use flexible ureteroscope), TCpP (total cost per procedure), TTF (time to failure)
      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

        • Marshall VF
        Fiber optics in urology.
        J Urol. 1964; 91: 110-114
        • Papatsoris AG
        • Kachrilas S
        • Howairis ME
        • Masood J
        • Buchholz N
        Novel technologies in flexible ureterorenoscopy.
        Arab J Urol. 2011; 9: 41-46
        • Bagley DH
        • Huffman JL
        • Lyon ES
        Flexible ureteropyeloscopy: diagnosis and treatment in the upper urinary tract.
        J Urol. 1987; 138: 280-285
        • Humphreys MR
        • Miller NL
        • Williams Jr., JC
        • Evan AP
        • Munch LC
        • Lingeman JE
        A new world revealed: early experience with digital ureteroscopy.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 970-975
        • Shah K
        • Monga M
        • Knudsen B.
        prospective randomized trial comparing 2 flexible digital ureteroscopes: ACMI/olympus invisio DUR-D and olympus URF-V.
        Urology. 2015; 85: 1267-1271
        • 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: 42-45
        • Kramolowsky E
        • McDowell Z
        • Moore B
        • Booth B
        • Wood N.
        cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice.
        J Endourol. 2016; 30: 254-256
        • Somani BK
        • Al-Qahtani SM
        • de Medina SD
        • Traxer O.
        Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope.
        Urology. 2013; 82: 1017-1019
        • Bach C
        • Nesar S
        • Kumar P
        • Goyal A
        • Kachrilas S
        • Papatsoris A
        • et al.
        The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: ‘size does matter’–increased ureteric access sheath use!.
        Urol Int. 2012; 89: 408-411
        • Landman J
        • Lee DI
        • Lee C
        • Monga M.
        Evaluation of overall costs of currently available small flexible ureteroscopes.
        Urology. 2003; 62: 218-222
        • Mazzucchi E
        • Marchini GS
        • Berto FCG
        • Denstedt J
        • Danilovic A
        • Vicentini FC
        • et al.
        Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: update and perspective in developing countries. A narrative review.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2022; 48: 456-467
        • Sorokin I
        • Mamoulakis C
        • Miyazawa K
        • Rodgers A
        • Talati J
        • Lotan Y.
        Epidemiology of stone disease across the world.
        World J Urol. 2017; 35: 1301-1320
        • Borofsky MS DC
        • York NE
        • et al.
        Comprehensive costs associated with fiberoptic and digital flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume teaching hospital.
        Urol Pract. 2017; 4: 187-192
        • 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 10): 607-610
        • Marchini GS
        • Torricelli FC
        • Batagello CA
        • Monga M
        • Vicentini FC
        • Danilovic A
        • 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: 658-670
        • Knudsen B
        • Miyaoka R
        • Shah K
        • Holden T
        • Turk TM
        • Pedro RN
        • et al.
        Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial.
        Urology. 2010; 75: 534-538
        • Martin CJ
        • McAdams SB
        • Abdul-Muhsin H
        • Lim VM
        • Nunez-Nateras R
        • Tyson MD
        • et al.
        The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: a cost-benefit analysis.
        J Urol. 2017; 197: 730-735
        • Banerjee I
        • Katz JE
        • Bhattu AS
        • Soodana NP
        • Deane LA
        • Marcovich R
        • et al.
        Durability of digital flexible ureteroscope in university hospital and ambulatory surgical center: Is It time to rethink?.
        J Endourol. 2021; 35: 289-295
        • Defidio L
        • De Dominicis M
        • Di Gianfrancesco L
        • Fuchs G
        • Patel A.
        Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures.
        J Endourol. 2012; 26: 1329-1334
        • Monga M
        • Best S
        • Venkatesh R
        • Ames C
        • Lee C
        • Kuskowski M
        • et al.
        Durability of flexible ureteroscopes: a randomized, prospective study.
        J Urol. 2006; 176: 137-141
        • Binbay M
        • Yuruk E
        • Akman T
        • Ozgor F
        • Seyrek M
        • Ozkuvanci U
        • et al.
        Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures?.
        J Endourol. 2010; 24: 1929-1934
        • Collins JW
        • Keeley Jr., FX
        • Timoney A
        Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy.
        BJU Int. 2004; 93: 1023-1026
        • Mager R
        • Kurosch M
        • Hofner T
        • Frees S
        • Haferkamp A
        • Neisius A.
        Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.
        Urolithiasis. 2018; 46: 587-593
        • Somani BK
        • Robertson A
        • Kata SG.
        Decreasing the cost of flexible ureterorenoscopic procedures.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 528-530
        • Multescu R
        • Geavlete B
        • Georgescu D
        • Geavlete P.
        Conventional fiberoptic flexible ureteroscope versus fourth generation digital flexible ureteroscope: a critical comparison.
        J Endourol. 2010; 24: 17-21
        • Soria F
        • Laguna MP
        • Roupret M
        • Garcia-Marchinena P
        • Gonzalez MS
        • Habuchi T
        • et al.
        Flexible fibre optic vs digital ureteroscopy and enhanced vs unenhanced imaging for diagnosis and treatment of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC): results from the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society (CROES)-UTUC registry.
        BJU Int. 2021; 128: 734-743
        • Geavlete P
        • Multescu R
        • Geavlete B.
        Influence of pyelocaliceal anatomy on the success of flexible ureteroscopic approach.
        J Endourol. 2008; 22: 2235-2239
        • Pietrow PK
        • Auge BK
        • Delvecchio FC
        • Silverstein AD
        • Weizer AZ
        • Albala DM
        • et al.
        Techniques to maximize flexible ureteroscope longevity.
        Urology. 2002; 60: 784-788
        • Rindorf DK
        • Tailly T
        • Kamphuis GM
        • Larsen S
        • Somani BK
        • Traxer O
        • et al.
        Repair rate and associated costs of reusable flexible ureteroscopes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022; 37: 64-72