Conversion to Disposable Cystoscopes Decreased Post-procedure Encounters and Infections Compared to Reusable Cystoscopes.

INTRODUCTION

We evaluated for differences in post-procedure 30-day encounters or infections following office cystoscopy using disposable vs reusable cystoscopes.

METHODS

Cystoscopies performed from June to September 2020 and from February to May 2021 in our outpatient practice were retrospectively reviewed. The 2020 cystoscopies were performed with reusable cystoscopes, and the 2021 cystoscopies were performed with disposable cystoscopes. The primary outcome was the number of post-procedural 30-day encounters defined as phone calls, patient portal messages, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or clinic appointments related to post-procedural complications such as dysuria, hematuria, or fever. Culture-proven urinary tract infection within 30 days of cystoscopy was evaluated as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

We identified 1,000 cystoscopies, including 494 with disposable cystoscopes and 506 with reusable cystoscopes. Demographics were similar between groups. The most common indication for cystoscopy in both groups was suspicion of bladder cancer (disposable: 153 [30.2%] and reusable: 143 [28.9%]). Reusable cystoscopes were associated with a higher number of 30-day encounters (35 [7.1%] vs 11 [2.2%], < .001), urine cultures (73 [14.8%] vs 3 [0.6%], = .005), and hospitalizations attributable to cystoscopy (1 [0.2%] vs 0 [0%], 001) than the disposable scope group. Positive urine cultures were also significantly more likely after cystoscopy with a reusable cystoscope (17 [3.4%] vs 1 [0.2%], < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Disposable cystoscopes were associated with a lower number of post-procedure encounters and positive urine cultures compared to reusable cystoscopes.