Perspectives on technology: to use or to reuse, that is the endoscopic question—a systematic review of single‐use endoscopes

Objective To compare clinical outcomes of single‐use endoscopes with those of reusable endoscopes to better define their role within urology. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases was performed. All studies comparing the clinical outcomes of participants undergoing urological procedures with single‐use endoscopes to those of participants treated with reusable endoscopes were included. Results are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Results Twenty‐one studies in 3943 participants were identified. Six different single‐use flexible ureteroscopes and two different single‐use flexible cystoscopes were assessed. There were no differences in mean postoperative infection rates (4.0% vs 4.4%; P = 0.87) or overall complication rates (11.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.88) between single‐use and reusable endoscopes. For patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy there were no differences in operating time (mean difference −0.05 min; P = 0.96), length of hospital stay (LOS; mean difference 0.06 days; P = 0.18) or stone‐free rate (SFR; 74% vs 74.3%; P = 0.54) between the single‐use and reusable flexible ureteroscope groups. Conclusion This study is the largest to compare the clinical outcomes of single‐use endoscopes to those of reusable endoscopes within urology, and demonstrated no difference in LOS, complication rate or SFR, with a shorter operating time associated with single‐use flexible cystoscope use. It also highlights that the cost efficiency and environmental impact of single‐use endoscopes is largely dependent on the caseload and reprocessing facilities available within a given institution. Urologists can therefore feel confident that whether they choose to ‘use’ or to ‘reuse’ based on the financial and environmental implications, they can do so without negatively impacting patient outcomes.