Table 3 Summary single-use FURS vs. re-usable FURS.

From: Comparative investigation of reusable and single–use flexible endoscopes for urological interventions

Single use FURS

reusable FURS

+

−

+

−

single use no sterilization process existing infrastructure* (Distribution, no repair facilities)

environmental impact: waste disposal32,33,34

sustainable multi use existing infrastructure* (distribution, sterilization, maintenance)

environmental impact: toxic detergents for sterilization33,34,35

always new and sterile “brand-new” optics/mechanics

“New technology” “digital optics ureteroscopes”, shaft diameter 9.5 F data acquisition

“established technology” optimized optical systems shaft diameter 8.5 F/8.0 F data acquisition

“used status” influences optics/mechanics cross contamination between patients possible26,27,35

low acquisition costs and no current expense**

 

high acquisition costs plus current expense** (maintenance, sterilization)

  1. *The use of both devices depends on the experience of the surgeon and the whole operation team as well as on the infrastructure (sterilization institutions/repair facilities) in the respective country or rather clinics35.
  2. **Cost analysis show different outcomes concerning the profitability of a reusable or single use endoscope program, depending on institute size, case numbers and infrastructure1,13,15.
Back to article page