Complications of Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy vs. Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2024-12, Vol.16 (12), p.e76256
• Main Authors: Punga, Ana Maria, Ene, Cosmin, Bulai, Catalin-Andrei, Georgescu, Dragos A, Multescu, Razvan, Georgescu, Dragos Eugen, Geavlete, Bogdan, Geavlete, Petrisor
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Healthcare Technology; Urology
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.76256

Urolithiasis, or kidney stones, is a painful condition that is becoming increasingly common worldwide. For many, the solution lies in a minimally invasive procedure called flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). This technique involves inserting a tiny, flexible scope into the urinary tract to break up and remove stones. Reusable fURS scopes have traditionally been the norm. However, concerns about infection control and instrument durability have led to the development of single-use scopes. While both methods offer effective treatment, the question remains: which one is safer and more efficient? To answer this, we conducted a comprehensive review of the available research. We analyzed 37 studies that compared single-use and reusable fURS complication rates. While both methods carry risks, such as bleeding, infection, and ureteral injury, the overall complication rates were found to be similar. As technology continues to advance, fURS is becoming even safer and more effective. However, there is still a need for standardized reporting and further research to better understand the potential risks and benefits of both single-use and reusable scopes. Ultimately, the choice between the two will depend on various factors, including patient factors, surgeon preference, and healthcare resource availability.