AUTHOR=Meng Chunyang , Peng Lei , Li Jinze , Li Yunxiang , Li Jinming , Wu Ji 

TITLE=Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Surgery

VOLUME=8

YEAR=2021

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/surgery/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170

DOI=10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170

ISSN=2296-875X

ABSTRACT=<p><bold>Objective:</bold> This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of the upper urinary calculi between single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) and reusable flexible ureteroscope (ru-fURS).</p><p><bold>Methods:</bold> We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus database, and CNKI databases within a period from the date of database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses.</p><p><bold>Results:</bold> A total of 1,020 patients were included in the seven studies. The statistical differences were only found in the Clavien–Dindo grade II postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.98; <italic>p</italic> = 0.04]. No significant statistical differences were observed in operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), and stone-free rate (SFR).</p><p><bold>Conclusion:</bold> Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that su-fURS, compared with ru-fURS, has similar effectiveness and better security for treating upper urinary calculi.</p>