FLEXIBLE CYSTOSCOPY using reusable devices was associated with substantially lower procedure costs than single-use alternatives, according to a real-world outpatient urology evaluation.
Researchers conducted a micro-costing analysis in a German outpatient urology centre performing 337 cystoscopies annually.
The study compared reusable and single-use flexible cystoscopes under routine clinical conditions.
Cost calculations included capital investment, maintenance, reprocessing, consumables, and labour.
In parallel, 13 physicians and 25 nursing staff from five outpatient practices completed a structured survey assessing technical performance and workflow characteristics.
The analysis found that the mean cost-per-procedure was €27.25 for reusable cystoscopes compared with €179.00 for single use devices.
Reusable cystoscopes became cost-effective when annual procedure volume exceeded 67 cystoscopies.
Even under a conservative scenario that modelled complete replacement of reusable equipment costing €43,050, the mean cost-per-procedure remained lower at €49.53, with a break-even threshold of 265 procedures annually.
Physician ratings revealed only limited differences between the technologies. Reusable cystoscopes were rated more favourably for manoeuvrability, while single-use devices received higher scores for logistics.
No significant differences were observed for image quality, ergonomics, diagnostic confidence, or overall impression.
These findings suggest that while physicians recognised logistical advantages associated with single-use systems, they continued to value the procedural handling characteristics of reusable devices.
In contrast, nursing staff consistently preferred single-use cystoscopes.
Significant differences favouring single-use devices were reported across all assessed domains: handling, reliability, logistics, reprocessing effort, and overall impression.
The authors concluded that reusable cystoscopes offer a clear economic advantage in high-volume outpatient settings.
However, the strong preference for single-use devices among nursing staff highlights the importance of workflow efficiency, reliability, and reduced reprocessing burden in daily practice.
According to the researchers, decisions regarding flexible cystoscopy technology should extend beyond cost alone.
Annual procedure volume, available infrastructure, reimbursement structures, staffing considerations, and multidisciplinary user perspectives may all influence the most appropriate choice.
The researchers also noted that patient reported outcomes and environmental impacts were not assessed and should be explored in future multi-centre investigations.
Reference
Seelemeyer F et al. Reusable vs single-use flexible cystoscopes in outpatient urology: a real-world micro-costing and user evaluation. BMC Urol. 2026;DOI:10.1186/s12894-026-02284-1
Featured image: ArLawKa on Adobe Stock
Each article is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 License.
