Similar articles

• Re: The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes: Methodological Flaws Led to the Erroneous Conclusion That Single-Use Is "Better".

  Rizan C, Bhutta MF. Rizan C, et al. J Endourol. 2022 Nov;36(11):1466-1467. doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0482. Epub 2022 Aug 22. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35848502 No abstract available.
• The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes Compared with Reusable Cystoscopes.

  Hogan D, Rauf H, Kinnear N, Hennessey DB. Hogan D, et al. J Endourol. 2022 Nov;36(11):1460-1464. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0891. Epub 2022 Jun 13. J Endourol. 2022. PMID: 35607858
• Environmental Impact of Flexible Cystoscopy: A Comparative Analysis Between Carbon Footprint of Isiris^® Single-Use Cystoscope and Reusable Flexible Cystoscope and a Systematic Review of Literature.

  Jahrreiss V, Sarrot P, Davis NF, Somani B. Jahrreiss V, et al. J Endourol. 2024 Apr;38(4):386-394. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0274. J Endourol. 2024. PMID: 38185843
• Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes.

  Kemble JP, Winoker JS, Patel SH, Su ZT, Matlaga BR, Potretzke AM, Koo K. Kemble JP, et al. BJU Int. 2023 May;131(5):617-622. doi: 10.1111/bju.15949. Epub 2023 Jan 2. BJU Int. 2023. PMID: 36515438
• Flexible cystoscopy.

  O'Sullivan DC, Chilton CP. O'Sullivan DC, et al. Br J Hosp Med. 1994 Apr 6-19;51(7):340-5. Br J Hosp Med. 1994. PMID: 8081563 Review.