The First UK Experience with Single-use Disposable Flexible Cystoscopes: An In-depth Cost Analysis, Service Delivery and Patient Satisfaction Rate with Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto is a single-use disposable flexible cystoscope that allows clinicians to perform the procedure at any time and any place. It simplifies workflow, frees up resources and allows clinicians to treat more patients. Our trust became the first in the UK and Europe to utilise these cystoscopes. An in-depth evaluation was performed to test its practicality, cost analysis and patient satisfaction against traditional reusable flexible cystoscopes. Material and Methods We compared the cost of using Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto to perform flexible cystoscopies in 20 patients prospectively against traditional flexible cystoscopes in 20 patients retrospectively. The cost of the equipment, reprocessing, cleaning supplies and maintenance were consulted from relevant departments and companies. All prospective patients were also given a patient satisfaction questionnaire to complete. An unpaired t-test was used to analyse the data. Results Our study revealed that it costs £135.23 and £166.33 on average to perform a flexible cystoscopy using Ambu® aScope™ 4 Cysto and the traditional flexible cystoscopes, respectively. Our patient survey revealed that there was a statistical significance between the patient experience using the single-use disposable scopes compared with the traditional reusable flexible cystoscopes (P = 0.0455). Further, 95% of patients also preferred a single-use disposable cystoscope over traditional reusable ones, given the option. Conclusion Single-use disposable flexible cystoscopes are a safe and cost-efficient method of performing the procedure. It is portable and proves to be a simple, efficient and practical way of performing a flexible cystoscopy in an inpatient, outpatient, or emergency setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".