• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

纤维光学与数字式:两种软性输尿管镜的耐用性和成本效益比较

Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes.

作者信息

Temiz Mustafa Zafer, Colakerol Aykut, Ertas Kasim, Tuken Murat, Yuruk Emrah

机构信息

Department of Urology, Catalca Ilyas Cokay State Hospital, Catalca/Istanbul, Turkey,

Department of Urology, Bagcilar Training and Research Hospital, Bagcilar/Istanbul, Turkey.

出版信息

Urol Int. 2019;102(2):181-186. doi: 10.1159/000494385. Epub 2018 Nov 21.

DOI:10.1159/000494385
PMID:30463076
Abstract

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the durability and cost effectiveness of the latest digital flexible ureterescope by comparing it with the conventional fiberoptic one.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery between January 2013 and December 2014 were collected. Fiberoptic Flex-X2 or digital Cobra vision flexible ureteroscopes were used for the procedures. The comparison of both ureteroscopes was performed in terms of patient and stone characteristics, operative outcomes, durability, and cost effectiveness.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients were evaluated for the study. The patient and stone characteristics and operative outcomes were similar between the groups. Overall, 54 and 51 procedures were performed using Flex-X2 and Cobra vision, respectively, before they were sent for renovation. The purchase prices were USD 29,500 for Flex-X2 and USD 58,000 for Cobra vision. Costs of per case were determined as USD 549.29 for Flex-X2 and as USD 1,137.25 for Cobra vision. Per minute working time costs were USD 772.04 and 1,471.33 for Flex-X2 and Cobra vision respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The digital Cobra vision has high costs without any difference in durability as compared to Flex-X2. Moreover, it has no benefit over Flex-X2 in terms of surgical outcomes.

摘要

目的

我们旨在通过将最新的数字柔性输尿管镜与传统纤维光学输尿管镜进行比较,评估其耐用性和成本效益。

材料与方法

收集2013年1月至2014年12月期间接受逆行肾内手术患者的数据。手术中使用纤维光学Flex-X2或数字Cobra vision柔性输尿管镜。对两种输尿管镜在患者和结石特征、手术结果、耐用性和成本效益方面进行比较。

结果

共有105例患者纳入本研究评估。两组患者和结石特征以及手术结果相似。总体而言,Flex-X2和Cobra vision分别在进行54例和51例手术后送去翻新。Flex-X2的购买价格为29,500美元,Cobra vision为58,000美元。Flex-X2每例成本确定为549.29美元,Cobra vision为1,137.25美元。Flex-X2和Cobra vision每分钟工作时间成本分别为772.04美元和1,471.33美元。

结论

与Flex-X2相比,数字Cobra vision成本高昂且耐用性无差异。此外,在手术结果方面,它相对于Flex-X2并无优势。

相似文献

1
Fiberoptic versus Digital: A Comparison of Durability and Cost Effectiveness of the Two Flexible Ureteroscopes.纤维光学与数字式:两种软性输尿管镜的耐用性和成本效益比较
Urol Int. 2019;102(2):181-186. doi: 10.1159/000494385. Epub 2018 Nov 21.
2
Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis.一次性使用数码输尿管软镜:一项离体评估和成本分析。
BJU Int. 2018 May;121 Suppl 3:55-61. doi: 10.1111/bju.14235.
3
The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis.可重复使用的灵活数字输尿管镜的经济影响:成本效益分析。
J Urol. 2017 Mar;197(3 Pt 1):730-735. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.085. Epub 2016 Sep 28.
4
Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study.可重复使用与单次使用软性输尿管镜的临床结果和成本:一项前瞻性队列研究。
Urolithiasis. 2018 Nov;46(6):587-593. doi: 10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1. Epub 2018 Jan 22.
5
Cost Analysis of Flexible Ureteroscope Repairs: Evaluation of 655 Procedures in a Community-Based Practice.软性输尿管镜维修的成本分析:基于社区医疗实践的655例手术评估
J Endourol. 2016 Mar;30(3):254-6. doi: 10.1089/end.2015.0642. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
6
Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes.微观成本分析表明,与可重复使用的软性纤维输尿管镜相比,LithoVue的成本相当。
J Endourol. 2018 Apr;32(4):267-273. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0523. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
7
Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes: How Do They Compare with Reusable Ureteroscopes?一次性使用软性输尿管镜:它们与可重复使用的输尿管镜相比如何?
J Endourol. 2019 Feb;33(2):71-78. doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0785. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
8
Which Flexible Ureteroscopes (Digital vs. Fiber-Optic) Can Easily Reach the Difficult Lower Pole Calices and Have Better End-Tip Deflection: In Vitro Study on K-Box. A PETRA Evaluation.哪种软性输尿管镜(数字式与光纤式)能够轻松抵达困难的下极肾盏并具有更好的尖端偏转:在K-Box上的体外研究。一项PETRA评估。
J Endourol. 2017 Jul;31(7):630-637. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0109. Epub 2017 Jun 13.
9
In Vitro Evaluation of Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Practical Comparison for a Patient-Centered Approach.一次性使用数字柔性输尿管镜的体外评估:以患者为中心方法的实际比较
J Endourol. 2018 Mar;32(3):184-191. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0785. Epub 2018 Jan 5.
10
Comparison of Flexible Ureterorenoscope Quality of Vision: An In Vitro Study.软性输尿管镜视觉质量比较:一项体外研究。
J Endourol. 2018 Jun;32(6):523-528. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0838. Epub 2018 Apr 24.

引用本文的文献

1
Microdamage analysis of single-use flexible ureteroscope immediately after lithotripsy use.一次性使用软性输尿管镜碎石术后即刻的微损伤分析。
Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 1;12(1):18367. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-23345-z.
2
International Alliance of Urolithiasis guideline on retrograde intrarenal surgery.国际尿石症联盟逆行性肾内手术指南。
BJU Int. 2023 Feb;131(2):153-164. doi: 10.1111/bju.15836. Epub 2022 Jul 12.
3
Stone removing efficiency and safety comparison between single use ureteroscope and reusable ureteroscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
一次性输尿管镜与可重复使用输尿管镜的结石清除效率及安全性比较:一项系统评价与荟萃分析
Transl Androl Urol. 2021 Apr;10(4):1627-1636. doi: 10.21037/tau-20-1399.
4
Cost comparison of single-use versus reusable flexible ureteroscope: A systematic review.一次性与可重复使用软性输尿管镜的成本比较:一项系统评价
Turk J Urol. 2020 Nov;46(Supp. 1):S40-S45. doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20223. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
5
Handling and protecting your flexible ureteroscope: how to maximise scope usage.操作与保护您的软性输尿管镜:如何最大限度地使用内镜
Transl Androl Urol. 2019 Sep;8(Suppl 4):S426-S435. doi: 10.21037/tau.2019.07.08.