Abstract：Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of domestic disposable and reusable electronic flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary calculi. Methods: The clinical data of 369 patients with upper urinary calculi treated in the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from January 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into experimental group and control group according to the type of flexible ureteroscopy used. Zebra disposable electronic flexible ureteroscope was used in the experimental group, while Storz reusable flexible ureteroscope was used in the control group. The stone size and CT value, hydronephrosis, operation time, calculi clearance rate, changes of laboratory indicators before and after operation, postoperative complications and other indicators were compared between the two groups. Results: There were no significant differences in age, gender, body mass index, proportion of hydronephrosis, calculous location, calculous shape, calculous CT value, calculous length, hypertension and diabetes mellitus between the experimental group and the control group. The experimental group had shorter operation time and higher calculous clearance rate in the treatment of upper urinary calculi, especially in the treatment of lower renal calyx calculi, combined with high-power Moses holium laser , and the difference was statistically significant（P<0.05）. Conclusion: It is safe and effective to use domestic disposable electronic flexible ureteroscope and reusable electronic flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary calculi. Combined with high power Mosesholium laser in the treatment of lower renal calyx calculi, the effect is better than the reusable electronic flexible ureteroscope.
[1] 曾国华, 麦赞林, 夏术阶, 等. 中国成年人群尿石症患病率横断面调查[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2015,(7): 5. [2] Kramolowsky E, McDowell Z, Moore B, et al. Cost analysis of flexible ureteroscope repairs: evaluation of 655 procedures in a community-based practice[J]. J Endourol, 2016, 30(3): 254-256. [3] Emiliani E, Traxer O. Single use and disposable flexible ureteroscopes[J]. Curr Opin Urol, 2017, 27(2): 176-181. [4] Keller EX,Doizi S, Villa L, et al. Which flexible ureteroscope is the best for upper tract urothelial carcinoma treatment?[J]. World J Urol, 2019 ,37(11): 2325-2333. [5] Qi SY, Yang EG, Bao JS, et al. Single-use versus reusable digital flexible ureteroscopes for the treatment of renal calculi: aprospective multicenter randomized controlled trial[J]. J Endourol, 2020 ,34(1): 18-24. [6] Jiang P, Xie LL, Arada R, et al. Qualitative review of clinical guidelines for medical and surgical management of urolithiasis: consensus and controversy 2020[J].J Urol, 2021 , 205(4): 999-1008. [7] Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study[J]. Am J Infect Control, 2017 ,45(8): 888-895. [8] Dragos LB, Somani BK, Kelle EX, et al. Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an in-vitro comparative analysis[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2019 ,8(Suppl 4): S359-S370. [9] Defidio L, Dominicis MD, Gianfrancesco LD, et al. Improving flexible ureterorenoscope durability up to 100 procedures[J]. J Endourol, 2012 ,26(10): 1329-1334. [10] Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, et al. Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study[J]. Urolithiasis, 2018 , 46(6): 587-93. [11] 肖博,靳松,姬超岳,等. 国产一次性电子输尿管软镜在上尿路结石治疗中的初步应用经验[J].中华泌尿外科杂志, 2020, 41(8): 4. [12] Proietti S, Dragos L, Molina W, et al. Comparison of new single-use digital flexible ureteroscope versus nondisposable fiber optic and digital ureteroscope in a cadaveric model[J]. J Endourol, 2016 , 30(6): 655-659. [13] Patterson K, Yap LC, Elamin M, et al. Evaluation of a new disposable flexible ureterorenoscope and comparison to an established disposable flexible ureterorenoscope: a prospective, observational study[J].Int Urol Nephrol, 2021 ,53(5): 875-881. [14] Salvadó JA, Cabello JM, Moreno S, et al. Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study[J]. Cent European J Urol, 2019,72(3): 280-284. [15] Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S, et al. Influence of pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal stones[J]. J Endourol, 2015, 29(9): 998-1005. [16] 杨嗣星,宋超,刘凌琪,等. 肾盂肾下盏漏斗角小于30°患者软镜下钬激光碎石术的初步经验[J]. 中华泌尿外科杂志, 2016,37(6): 423-426. [17] Winship B, Wollin D, Carlos E, et al. Dusting efficiency of the moses holmium laser: an automated in vitro assessment[J].J Endourol , 2018, 32(12): 1131-1135. [18] Keller EX, Coninck Vincent de , Audouin M, et al. Fragments and dust after holmium laser lithotripsy with or without "moses technology": how are they different?[J]. J Biophotonics, 2019, 12(4): e201800227. [19] Salvadó JA, Olivares R, Cabello JM, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery using the single- use flexible ureteroscope Uscope 3022 (Pusen™): evaluation of clinical results[J]. Cent European J Urol, 2018,71(2): 202-207. [20] Göger YE, Özkent MS, Kılınç MT, et al. Efficiency of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower pole stones: disposable flexible ureterorenoscope or reusable flexible ureterorenoscope?[J]. World J Urol, 2021 ,39(9): 3643-3650.
