Furthermore, multiuse scopes are more durable than single use scopes are in Dr. Liatsikos’ opinion. Single-use scopes are meant to only be used a few times – the deflection wears down quickly. In some cases, single use scopes break in the operating room. In these cases, back-up scopes need to be multi-use scopes, as surgeons’ universally agree that a durable, dependable scope with proven efficacy should always be a standby.
Dr. Liatsikos also brought up the critical topic of the ecological impact of single use scopes. Because operating room equipment is not recycled, single-use scopes often end up in landfill. Furthermore, single-use scopes can be used up to a dozen times in the OR, so the ecological impact of resterilization and decontamination of these scopes is still exists.
Lastly, multiuse scopes may be more cost-effective than single-use scopes, especially at a large center. Dr. Liatsikos reported that after 99 ureteroscopic cases, a Mayo Clinic study determined that reusable scopes are actually more cost-saving than disposable scopes.1 As a parting thought, Dr. Liatsikos concedes that every institution may need a mixture of both types of scopes. The greatest advantage to single-use scopes may be their use in surgical training as Dr. Liatsikos would much rather his residents break a cheaper scope than a high-end, reusable scope.
Dr. Mourmouris, who was in favor of single-use scopes, began his portion of the debate by stating that there are many different components of the evaluation of image quality in scopes. For example, field of view and distortion of image are part of quality evaluation, and single-use scopes are not worse than reusable scopes in these regards. Furthermore, he believes that deflection-wise, disposable scopes are actually performing better than reusable scopes. Lastly, one study showed that reusable scopes and single-use scopes have comparable ecological impact.2
However the biggest benefit of single-use scopes, in Dr. Mourmouris’s opinion, is that they are much lighter and easier to maneuver than reusable scopes are. If, for example, a surgeon performs three to four cases per day and spends one to two hours per case, the lightness and easdisposable scopes are lighter and easier to use than reusable scopes. If surgeons are more comfortable, they may perform better with better patient outcomes.
Presented by: Panagiotis Mourmouris, Msc PhD, FEBU1 (Disposable) and Evangelos Liatsikos, MD2 (Resuable)
1. Division of Urology II, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece
2. Chairman of the European Association of Urology Section of Uro- Technology (ESUT), Professor of Urology at the University, Patras, Greece; Guest Professor, University of Leipzig, Germany; Adjunct Professor, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
Written by: Lillian Xie, BA, Department of Urology, University of California, Irvine, California at the 37th World Congress of Endourology (WCE) – October 29th-November 2nd, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
1. Martin CJ, McAdams SB, Abdul-Muhsin H, et al. The economic implications of a reusable flexible digital ureteroscope: A cost–benefit analysis. J Urol 2017;197(3 Pt. 1):730–735
2. Davis NF, Mcgrath S, Quinlan M, Jack G, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton DM. Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-Use Ureteroscopes. J Endourol. 2018;32(3):214-217.