Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2025 May 2;15(1):15362.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-00515-3.

Early clinical outcomes using a 6.3 Fr single use ureteroscope compared to a 7.5 Fr device

Petrisor-Aurelian Geavlete  1   2 , Catalin-Andrei Bulai  3   4 , Razvan-Dragos Multescu  1   2 , Cosmin-Victor Ene  1   2 , Adrian Militaru  1   2 , Ana-Maria Andreea Punga  1   2 , Bogdan-Florin Geavlete  1   2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Early clinical outcomes using a 6.3 Fr single use ureteroscope compared to a 7.5 Fr device

Petrisor-Aurelian Geavlete et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Flexible ureteroscopy is a cornerstone in minimally invasive urology, providing effective management of kidney stones and other urological conditions. The emergence of single-use ureteroscopes addresses challenges associated with reusable devices, such as cross-contamination, maintenance costs, and degradation over time. This prospective, single-center study compared the performance of the 6.3 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope to the 7.5 Fr model in the treatment of kidney stones ≤ 2 cm. Forty patients were divided into two groups of 20, with preoperative assessments including CT scans and urine cultures. All patients underwent flexible ureteroscopy with thulium fiber laser lithotripsy under general anesthesia, and stone-free rates (SFRs) were assessed via CT at one month postoperatively. The 6.3 Fr ureteroscope achieved a significantly higher SFR of 95% compared to 92.9% with the 7.5 Fr model (p = 0.042). Mean operative times were 58 min (6.3 Fr) vs. 62.5 min (7.5 Fr), with no statistically significant differences in laser time or total energy used. Energy efficiency was 0.047 mm3/J (6.3 Fr) vs. 0.035 mm3/J (7.5 Fr), while energy consumption was 20.89 J/mm3 vs. 28.34 J/mm3, respectively. Both devices exhibited low complication rates, with only minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grades 1 and 2) reported. Postoperative ureteral mucosal injury was assessed intraoperatively, and no cases exceeded Grade 1. This study highlights the safety and efficacy of the 6.3 Fr ureteroscope, demonstrating comparable or superior outcomes to the 7.5 Fr model in terms of SFR and operative time. While economic and sterility benefits were not evaluated, the findings support the adoption of smaller-diameter devices for minimally invasive procedures, though further studies are warranted to validate their broader clinical impact.

Keywords: 6.3 Fr ureteroscope; Single-use flexible ureteroscope; Suction access sheath; Urolithiasis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
6.3 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope (Hugemed)and suction system.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
7.5 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope (left) vs. 6.3 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope (right).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Intraoperative aspects using 6.3 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope (Hugemed)and suction access sheath.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kahokehr, A. A. & Gordon, A. C. Ureteroscopy in the management of urolithiasis: an update. Ther. Adv. Urol.10 (7), 185–190. 10.1177/1756287218773551 (2018).
    1. Nikkel, L., Lipkin, M. & Preminger, G. M. The evolution of flexible ureteroscopy: technological advancements, instrumentation, and their impact on surgical practice. World J. Urol.38 (4), 865–872. 10.1007/s00345-019-02844-7 (2020).
    1. Carey, R. I. & Bird, V. G. Study of durability of flexible ureteroscopes in a high-volume endourology practice. J. Endourol.22 (11), 2181–2184. 10.1089/end.2008.0356 (2008). - PubMed
    1. Ofstead, C. L. et al. The effectiveness of sterilization for flexible ureteroscopes: a real-world study. Am. J. Infect. Control. 45 (10), 1133–1138. 10.1016/j.ajic.2017.05.018 (2017). - PubMed
    1. Taguchi, K. et al. The durability and cost-effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteroscopes: a systematic review. J. Endourol.31 (11), 1085–1094. 10.1089/end.2017.0528 (2017).

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources