ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Flexible cystoscopy is a common procedure to diagnose and treat lower urinary tract conditions. Single-use cystoscopes have been introduced to eliminate time-consuming reprocessing and costly repairs. We compared the hands-on labor time differences between flexible reusable cystoscopes versus Ambu's aScope™ 4 Cysto (aS4C) at a large urology Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC). METHODS: Reusable and single-use cystoscopy procedures were shadowed for timestamp collection for setup and breakdown. A subset of reusable cystoscopes were followed through the reprocessing cycle. T-tests were calculated to measure the significance between groups. RESULTS: The average hands-on time necessary for reusable cystoscope preparation, breakdown, and pre-cleaning was 4'53â³. Of this, 2'53â³ were required for preparation, while 2'0â³ were required for breakdown and pre-cleaning. The average hands-on time for reprocessing for reusable was 7'1" per cycle. The total time for single-use scopes was 2'22â³. Of this, 1'36â³ was needed for single-use preparation, and 45 s for breakdown. Compared to reusable cystoscopes, single-use cystoscopes significantly reduced pre and post-procedure hands-on labor time by 2'31", or 48%. When including reprocessing, total hands-on time was 80% greater for reusable than single-use cystoscopes. CONCLUSION: Single-use cystoscopes significantly reduced hands-on labor time compared to reusable cystoscopes. On average, the facility saw a reduction of 2'31â³ per cystoscope for each procedure. This translates to 20 additional minutes gained per day, based on an 8 procedures per day. Utilizing single-use cystoscopes enabled the facility to reduce patient wait times, decrease turnaround times, and free up staff time.
Subject(s)
Cystoscopes , Urology , Humans , Cystoscopy , WorkflowABSTRACT
Purpose: Cystoscopy procedures can cause distress among patients. Patient perspectives on health services are essential inputs in decision-making. This study investigated the patient preferences in Spain regarding single-use cystoscopes (SUC) compared to reusable cystoscopes and their willingness to pay (WTP) for cystoscopy procedures. Patients and Methods: Between May and June 2021, an anonymous survey was distributed to Spanish patients who had previously undergone a cystoscopy. The survey included patient preference measures on reusable cystoscopes compared to SUCs and a discrete choice experiment. The survey was distributed through a human data science company (IQVIA), collected using an online survey tool (QuestionPro®), and analyzed using Stata/MP, StataCorp. Results: Of 300 respondents, 148 (49.33%) were female and 150 (50%) were male, and mainly between 18-49 years (247, 82.33%). Most (265, 88%) preferred to have their procedure performed with a SUC rather than a reusable cystoscope. Among these patients, 215 (80%) could imagine asking their doctor to use a SUC. A total of 231 (77%) respondents indicated an increased level of concern about the risk of exposure to contamination related to their cystoscopy following the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients would pay 62 EUR to have their initial consultation and cystoscopy procedure on the same day (p < 0.001), 59 EUR to reduce the environmental impact, and 57 EUR to reduce the risk of contamination (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Patients prefer to undergo cystoscopy using an SUC on the same day as their initial consultation. The increased contamination concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic and WTP to reduce the risk of cystoscope contamination may explain patients' preferences for SUCs. The most important attributes related to their cystoscopy procedure are the ability to have their procedure performed on the same day as their initial consultation, the reduction of the environmental impact, and the reduction of the contamination risk.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: The refined mechanics of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS) are vulnerable to damage. Sending the fURS for repair is costly and has driven interest toward estimating the resources used for fURS repairs. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available literature and to estimate the total weighted repair rate of an fURS and the average repair cost per ureteroscopy. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was conducted by searching the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. The average costs of all repairs identified in the included studies were extracted. A random-effect model was used to calculate the pooled total fURS repair rate. The total weighted repair rate and average cost per repair were multiplied to provide an average cost of repair per ureteroscopy procedure. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 18 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which included 411 repairs from 5900 investigated ureteroscopy procedures. The calculated weighted repair rate was 6.5% ± 0.745% (95% confidence interval: 5.0-7.9%; I2 = 75.3%), equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures before repair. The average cost per repair was 6808 USD; according to the weighted repair rate of 6.5%, this corresponds to an average repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Egger's regression test did not reveal a significant publication bias (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the repair rate of the fURS used for ureteroscopy. Our analysis demonstrates a repair rate of 6.5%, equivalent to 15 ureteroscopy procedures between fURS repairs and a repair cost of 441 USD per procedure. Ureteroscopy practices should consider fURS breakage rates and repair costs to optimize the use of reusable versus disposable devices. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed available literature investigating the repair rate of a flexible ureteroscope (fURS). We found that fURSs are sent for repair after every 15 ureteroscopy procedures, corresponding to 441 USD per procedure in repair cost.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Single-use endoscopes have been subjected to increase awareness in recent years, and several new single-use cystoscopes (eg Ambu® aScope 4 Cysto) have entered the market. However, the market readiness for such single-use cystoscopes remains unknown. This study investigates the worldwide market readiness for single-use cystoscopes among urologists and procurement managers (PMs) from Europe, Japan, and the US. MATERIALS AND METHOD: An online survey using QuestionPro® was distributed to urologists and PMs in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, the UK, and the US between March 10, 2020 and July 14, 2020. All surveys were translated into the respective local language. Statistical analyses were performed using the software package Stata/SE version 16.1, StataCorp. Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical variables and simple linear regression was applied to continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 415 urologists and PMs completed the survey (343 [82.7%] urologists and 72 [17.3%] PMs). Seventy (16.9%) were from Japan, 100 (24.1%) were from the US, and 245 (59.0%) were evenly distributed across the following European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK. On average, respondents indicated that they would consider converting to single-use in 44.5% of their cystoscopy procedures. Respondents anticipated significantly higher conversion (p<0.05) when they (1) used single-use ureteroscopes in their department, (2) were concerned about cystoscopy-related infection as a result of contaminated cystoscopes, (3) were members of their institution's value committee, or (4) considered cost-transparency to be important when purchasing cystoscopes. CONCLUSION: This study investigated the marked readiness for single-use cystoscopes according to urologists and PMs worldwide. Respondents indicated a willingness to convert to single-use cystoscopes in nearly half (44.5%) of their cystoscopy procedures. Respondents that were concerned about cystoscopy-related infections as a result of contaminated cystoscopes indicated a significantly higher anticipated conversion rate (p<0.05).
