Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2021
[Single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: Technical and medico-economic aspects].
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Carlier M, Baboudjian M, Govidin L, Yahia M, Chiappini J, Lechevallier E, Boissier R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Sate of the art on the indications, methods of implementation and medico-economic considerations of reusable flexible ureteroscopes (URSr) vs single use (URSuu)?
METHOD: Review of the literature (Pubmed) on reusable and single-use ureteroscopes, as well as on the expertise of our center. A PubMed search and narrative review of the data was performed in July 2021. Only articles in French or English were selected.
RESULTS: The URSr and URSuu have similar technical characteristics and are suitable for the exploration of the upper urinary excretory tract: treatment of stones of the kidney <2cm or of the ureter. The URSr is the most common type of ureteroscope. URSuu are newer and associated with many advantages: no sterilization procedure, immediate availability of equipment in the operating room, reduced waste production at the institutional level. A hybrid use of URSr and URSuu currently seems to be the best compromise from a medico-economic point of view for high volume centers. In the case of a smaller activity or a secondary site, URSuu are more advantageous and the reduction in purchasing costs should accentuate this benefit.
CONCLUSION: URSr and URSuu are technically similar and allow identical treatment of upper urinary tract pathologies. Their complementary use optimizes the care of urology patients. The barrier to the exclusive use of URSuu remains their cost.
METHOD: Review of the literature (Pubmed) on reusable and single-use ureteroscopes, as well as on the expertise of our center. A PubMed search and narrative review of the data was performed in July 2021. Only articles in French or English were selected.
RESULTS: The URSr and URSuu have similar technical characteristics and are suitable for the exploration of the upper urinary excretory tract: treatment of stones of the kidney <2cm or of the ureter. The URSr is the most common type of ureteroscope. URSuu are newer and associated with many advantages: no sterilization procedure, immediate availability of equipment in the operating room, reduced waste production at the institutional level. A hybrid use of URSr and URSuu currently seems to be the best compromise from a medico-economic point of view for high volume centers. In the case of a smaller activity or a secondary site, URSuu are more advantageous and the reduction in purchasing costs should accentuate this benefit.
CONCLUSION: URSr and URSuu are technically similar and allow identical treatment of upper urinary tract pathologies. Their complementary use optimizes the care of urology patients. The barrier to the exclusive use of URSuu remains their cost.