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
Review
. 2025 Oct;19(10):E349-E353.
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.9158.

Disposable flexible cystoscopes for removing double J catheter A budget impact analysis

Affiliations
Review

Disposable flexible cystoscopes for removing double J catheter A budget impact analysis

Jean Simon Harvey et al. Can Urol Assoc J. 2025 Oct.

Abstract

Introduction: We conducted a budget impact analysis to evaluate the cost of removing double J catheters using single-use flexible digital cystoscopes compared to reusable cystoscopes at the CHU de Québec.

Methods: The UETMIS of CHU de Québec estimated average costs per intervention for both reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes in the endoscopy room. Costs included purchase, repair, reprocessing, and sterilization for reusable cystoscopes based on data from 2017-2019. For single-use cystoscopes, the unit price and technical platform costs were considered. Annual costs were calculated using the average cost per procedure and the annual volume of double J catheter removals.

Results: The average cost per intervention for reusable flexible cystoscopes was estimated at $148.55, while for single-use digital flexible cystoscopes, it was $293.38. For 385 annual double J catheter removals, the total cost would be $57 191.75 with reusable cystoscopes and $112 951.30 with single-use cystoscopes. This represents an additional cost of $144.83 per procedure or $55 760 annually when using single-use cystoscopes.

Conclusions: The use of single-use flexible digital cystoscopes for double J catheter removal at CHU de Québec would nearly double the cost per procedure compared to reusable cystoscopes. This cost difference is primarily due to the purchase price of single-use devices. While cystoscope breakage is infrequent, the potential for higher breakage risk during double J catheter removal could reduce the cost differential. Future implementation of patient-focused financing might alter the economic evaluation of single-use cystoscopes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

COMPETING INTERESTS: The authors do not report any competing personal or financial interests related to this work.

References

    1. Donato P, Honore M, Zana T, et al. Prospective trial of single-use, flexible cystoscope for ureteric double-J stent removal: Cost and utility analysis. J Clin Urol. 2019;13:160–3. doi: 10.1177/2051415819860377. - DOI
    1. Oderda M, Antolini J, Falcone M, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal. Urologia. 2020;87:29–34. doi: 10.1177/0391560319859797. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hogan D, Rauf H, Kinnear N, et al. The carbon footprint of single-use flexible cystoscopes compared with reusable cystoscopes. J Endourol. 2022;36:1460–4. doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0891. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kemble J, Winoker J, Patel S, et al. Environmental impact of single-use and reusable flexible cystoscopes. BJU Int. 2023;131:617–22. doi: 10.1111/bju.15949. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jahrreiss V, Sarrot P, Davis NF, et al. 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. J Endourol. 2024;38:386–94. doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0274. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources