aScope 5 Uretero Supporting Evidence
The aScope 5 Uretero supporting evidence explores health outcomes such as health economics, clinical performance, and more. Just open one of the sections below to review full text and abstracts with links to their initial publication and research. If you need clinical evidence for an Ambu product, visit our Clinical Evidence page.
Select Publication Category
Health Economics
Cost of reusable vs. single-use ureteroscopes in complex renal surgeries: a randomized cohort study
Unno et al.
This single-center, randomized cohort study evaluated the costs associated with utilizing reusable flexible ureteroscopes and single-use flexible ureteroscopes. The total cost per procedure for reusable flexible ureteroscopes amounted to $1,499, while the total cost per procedure for single-use amounted to $840.
2025
Read full-text
Initial Experience with Novel Single-Use Disposable Ureteroscopy: A Prospective, Single Arm 90-day Trials of the Axis Ureteroscope
Large et al.
This single-center, 90-day trial of a single-use ureteroscope found that by utilizing single-use, there was a savings of $140 per procedure and amounted to $56,127 annually.
2020
Read full-text
Clinical Outcomes and Costs of Reusable and Single-Use Flexible Ureterornoscopes: A Prospective Cohort Study
Mager et al.
Taking into consideration the total purchase costs of flexible ureteroscopes, recurring repair and reprocessing costs, this single-center study found that the total cost per procedure for reusable ureteroscopy was between $1,212 and $1,743.
2018
Read full-text
Micro-Costing Analysis Demonstrates Comparable Costs for LithoVue Compared to Reusable Flexible Fiberoptic Ureteroscopes
Taguchi et al.
Sterilizing reusable urological endoscopes can be costly and time consuming. Sterilization of urological endoscopes amounted to $107.27 per cycle, for labor and consumables during each cycle.
2018
Read full-text
Comprehensive Costs associated with Fiberoptic and Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes at a High Volume Teaching Hospital
Borofsky et al.
The total cost of utilizing digital ureteroscopes was more than 1.3x the total cost of fiberoptic ureteroscopes due to the cost of repairs for digital ureteroscopes.
2017
Read full-text
Defining the Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope Reprocessing Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing
Isaacson et al.
Direct observation and timing of flexible ureteroscope reprocessing resulted in an average of 229 minutes, and amounting to $96.13, per reprocessing cycle.
2017
Read full-text
The Economic Implications of a Reusable Flexible Digital Ureteroscope: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Martin et al.
Following 160 ureteroscopies over a 12-month period, the authors found that flexible ureteroscopes suffered damage and required a repair every 12.5 cases.
2016
Read full-text
Clinical Performance
How Does it Stack Up? User Comparison of the Ambu aScope 5 Uretero against Reusable Ureteroscope Platforms
Haislip, I., Cool, C.
From July to September 2024, 11 board-certified urologists performed 39 ureteroscopies utilizing the Ambu aScope 5 Uretero and completed performance evaluations for the ureteroscope system. Compared to their typical reusable ureteroscope platform, urologists rated the aScope 5 Uretero as 'comparable' or better for each metric captured.
2025
Read abstract
A New-to-Market Single-use Ureteroscope: Urologist Performance Rating and Capability Assessment
Haislip, I., Cool, C.
Between July and September 2024, 20 urologists performed 61 ureteroscopies with the Ambu aScope 5 Uretero. Urologists rated the ureteroscope across 11 performance metrics on 1 to 5 Likert scale (1=Very poor, 3=Acceptable, 5=Very good). More than 70% of participating urologists rated the performance of the aScope 5 Uretero between 'good' (4) and 'very good' (5) for each metric captured.
2025
Read abstract
Urinary Tract Infection Predictors in Patients Undergoing Retrograde IntraRenal Surgery for Renal Stones: Does the Instrument Make the Difference?
Prata et al.
From March 2022 to September 2023, data was collected across 112 RIRS procedures for renal stones, with 77 procedures utilizing reusable ureteroscopes and 35 utilizing single-use ureteroscopes. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the type of ureteroscope used (reusable vs. single-use) was an indepedent predictor of post-operative UTI (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.08-1.2; p<0.001).
2024
Read full-text
Clinical Comparative Study of Single-use and Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscopy for the Treatment of Lower Pole Stones: A Retrospective Case-controlled Study
Jing et al.
In this single-center study, 135 patients underwent ureteroscopy with a reusable flexible ureteroscope, while 78 patients underwent ureteroscopy with a single-use flexible ureteroscope. When comparing the reusable flexible ureteroscope group to the single-use flexible ureteroscope group, the single-use arm experienced shorter operative times (p<0.05) and had higher stone-free rates (p=0.040), showing that these devices are a safe atlernative for lower pole stones.
2024
Read full-text
Evaluation of a Novel Single-use Ureteroscope: User Satisfaction & Comparison Survey
Winoker et al.
A new to market single-use ureteroscope, the aScope 5 Uretero, was trialed by 14 board-certified urologists and rated for it's performance during simulated procedures nad compared against other marketed single-use ureteroscopes. The aScope 5 Uretero recvied high overall ratings across each metric captured including: ease-of-use, deflection and articulation, image quality, and the overall rating compared to user's current ureteroscope platform.
2024
Read abstract
Single-Use Ureteroscopes are Associated with Decreased Risk of Urinary Tract Infection after Ureteroscopy for Urolithiasis Compared to Reusable Ureteroscopes
Unno et al.
This single-center, retrospective study examined ureteroscopies performed with reusable and single-use ureterosocpes between 2012 and 2021. Rates of postoperative UTI were lower for stone removal ureteroscopies with single-use ureteroscopes compared to reusable ureteroscopes.
2023
Read full-text
Reprocessing Effectiveness for Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Critical Look at the Evidence
Ofstead et al.
Reprocessing is complex, time-consuming and difficult due to the endoscope's small size, fragility and internal working channel. This review describes ureteroscope reproecssing methods with summaries of evidence on reprocessing effectiveness, which found that 100% of fully-reprocessed flexible ureteroscopes had high levels of residual protein, 63% had detectable hemoglobin, 44% had elevated adenosine triphosphate levels, and 13% harbored viable, cutlurable microbes.
2022
Read full-text
Single-use vs. Reusable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope to Treat Upper Urinary Calculi: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis
Huang et al.
Patients undergoing ureteroscopy with single-use uretoerscopes had a shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those undergoing a procedure with reusable ureteroscopes, with no signficant difference in postoperative complications.
2022
Read full-text
Comparison between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Meng at al.
Single-use ureteroscopes were found to have improved postoperative complication rates compared to reusable ureteroscopes, while maintaining similar performance in terms of operating time, length of hospital stay and stone free rates.
2021
Read full-text
Comparison of Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes for Renal Stone Management: A pooled Analysis of 772 Patients
Li et al.
This systematic review and pooled analysis found single-use ureteroscopes to have a higher stone free rates compared to reusable ureteroscopes, while having no significant difference in procedural complications or patient injury.
2021
Read full-text
A Prospective Case-Control Study Comparing LithoVue, a Single-Use, Flexible Disposable Ureteroscope with Flexible, Reusable Fiber-Optic Ureteroscopes
Usawachintachit et al.
Procedures utilizing single-use ureteroscopes saw a shorter procedure duration compared to procedure using reusable fiberoptic ureteroscopes, with scope failure rates totaling 4.4% and 7.7%, respectively.
2018
Read full-text
Sustainability
Environmental Impact of Current Endoscopic Technology in Urological Procedures: A Systematic Review on Reusable vs. Disposable Scopes
Peyrottes et al.
A review of relevant publications through January 2024 found that published studies around environmental impact showed comparable carbon footprints for both single-use and reusable ureteroscopes. Authors encourage the continued assessment and evaluation of single-use and reusable surgical outputs.
2024
Read full-text
Carbon Footprinting and Sustainability Impact Assessment in Urological Surgical Practice - A Systematic Review
Wani et al.
This systematic review was performed following PRISMA guidelines covering publications from 1971 to 2023. Single-use ureteroscopes were found to be comparable to reusable ureteroscopes in terms of the total carbon footprint.
2024
Read full-text
Carbon Footprint in Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comparative Study on the Environmental Impact of Reusable and Single-use Ureteroscopes
Davis et al.
This investigation found that the environmental impact of utilizing a flexible single-use and a flexible reusable ureteroscope were comparable, with the total carbon footprint amounting to 4.43 kg of CO2 and 4.47 kg of CO2, respectively.
2018
Read full-text
Repairs
Breakage Costs in Flexible Ureteroscopy: Digital vs. Fiberoptic Modalities
Ito et al.
Reusable flexible ureteroscopes are fragile endoscopes that require repairs often, with fiberoptic ureteroscopes requiring repair every 13.4 procedures and digital ureteroscopes undergoing repair every 12.2 procedures. The total repair cost per procedure for fiberoptic and digital ureteroscopes amounted to $450 and $540, respectively.
2023
Read full-text
Repair Rate and Associated Costs of Reusable Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Rindorf et al.
This systematic review and meta-analysis found that reusable flexible ureteroscope repair rate was 6.5%, which translates to a repair every 15 ureteroscopies performed. The average repair cost per procedure amounted to $441.
2022
Read full-text
Download Evidence Dossier
See published peer-reviewed studies on health economics, elmination of costly repairs, and improving clinical outcomes related to single-use ureteroscopes.
