Table 3.

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

Single use FURS		reusable FURS
+	−	+	−
single use no sterilization process existing infrastructure* (Distribution, no repair facilities)	environmental impact: waste disposal32–34	sustainable multi use existing infrastructure* (distribution, sterilization, maintenance)	environmental impact: toxic detergents for sterilization33–35
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)

*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.

**Cost analysis show different outcomes concerning the profitability of a reusable or single use endoscope program, depending on institute size, case numbers and infrastructure^1,13,15.