Healthcare Utilization and Complications Associated With Single-Use Versus Reusable Flexible Cystoscopy in Hospital Outpatient Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Cystoscopy is one of the most commonly performed urologic procedures in the United States, yet comparative outcome data for single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopes in hospital outpatient settings are limited. This study compared 30‑day healthcare utilization and complications after single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopy performed in hospital outpatient settings. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database to identify adults who underwent diagnostic cystoscopy in a hospital outpatient setting between January 1, 2022, and August 31, 2024. We compared outcomes of patients who underwent single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopy. Primary outcomes were 30-day healthcare utilization and complications. Propensity score matching was used to control for demographics, comorbidities, clinical history, and prior healthcare utilization. A predefined subgroup analysis was performed for patients aged 65 years or older. Results Of 62,965 eligible encounters, 1,473 (2.3%) used single-use cystoscopes and 61,492 (97.7%) used reusable cystoscopes. After matching (1:5), 1,473 single-use procedures were compared with 7,365 reusable procedures. Thirty-day healthcare utilization was significantly lower with single-use devices (5.2% vs. 13.0%; hazard ratio (HR)=0.39; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.31, 0.49; p<0.001). The results favored single-use cystoscopes for acute care events (p<0.001), emergency department visits (p=0.03), same-day surgeries (p=0.01), and clinic visits (p<0.001). Complication rates were significantly lower with single-use cystoscopes (1.8% vs. 4.3%; HR=0.40; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.60; p<0.001), as were serious complications (HR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.81; p<0.001). The findings were similar in patients aged ≥65 years. Conclusion In hospital outpatient settings, single-use flexible cystoscopes were associated with substantially lower healthcare utilization and complication rates than reusable devices. These results support considering single-use cystoscopes when planning care pathways in hospital-based outpatient care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".