Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16979
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDavis, NF-
dc.contributor.authorQuinlan, MR-
dc.contributor.authorBrowne, C-
dc.contributor.authorBhatt, NR-
dc.contributor.authorManecksha, Rustom P-
dc.contributor.authorD’Arcy, FT-
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathan-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien M-
dc.date2017-11-29-
dc.date.accessioned2017-11-30T01:11:00Z-
dc.date.available2017-11-30T01:11:00Z-
dc.date.issued2018-04-
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Urology 2018; 36(4): 529-536en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16979-
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: Data assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS. METHODS: A systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Eleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Single-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.en_US
dc.subjectDisposable flexible ureteroscopeen_US
dc.subjectFlexible pyeloscopyen_US
dc.subjectFlexible ureteropyeloscopyen_US
dc.subjectFlexible ureteroscopyen_US
dc.subjectSingle-use flexible pyeloscopyen_US
dc.titleSingle-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic reviewen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.journaltitleWorld Journal of Urologyen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Irelanden_US
dc.identifier.affiliationTrinity College Dublin, Dublin, Irelanden_US
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Irelanden_US
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29177820en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-017-2131-4en_US
dc.type.contentTexten_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8553-5618en_US
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5145-6783en_US
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
local.name.researcherBolton, Damien M
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
crisitem.author.deptUrology-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

26
checked on Apr 25, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.