Skip to main content

Flexible Cystoscope

The flexible cystoscope is a steerable small-caliber endoscope with distal tip deflection, used for office-based diagnostic cystoscopy under topical anesthesia. Models vary in diameter, channel, optics and deflection; reusable fiberoptic and digital systems coexist with sterile single-use digital scopes. The precise device and accessory instructions govern any therapeutic use.[1][2][3][4][29]

Design​

ComponentDetail
OpticsFiberoptic (coherent glass-fiber bundle) or digital chip-on-tip (distal CMOS / CCD sensor); the cited head-to-head comparisons found better measured image performance for their HD digital models, not every model or procedure.[5][6][7]
Outer diameterModel-specific; the Ambu aScope 5 Cysto HD insertion cord is 16.2 Fr, versus a current Karl Storz rigid cysto-urethroscope example at 17 Fr — not half the caliber.[29]
Working channelModel-specific; the Ambu example has a 6.6 Fr minimum channel, but a nominally fitting accessory is not automatically compatible in combination.[29]
Tip deflectionModel-specific; the Ambu example lists 210° up / 120° down and warns deflection may change with an instrument inserted.[29]
LengthModel-specific; the Ambu example has a 388 mm working length.[29]
Field of viewModel-specific; 120° for the Ambu and Olympus CYF-VH examples.[29]
IrrigationGravity-fed saline or sterile water through the working channel; flow falls when an instrument is passed

In Lusch's tested devices, HD digital cystoscope resolution at 10 mm was 14.3 lp/mm, versus 7.13 for the SD digital scope and 4.00 for the fiberoptic scope (p < 0.001). Okhunov's 1,022-case comparison found that surgeons preferred the digital scope. These model-era comparisons do not rank every present-day rigid or flexible device.[5][6]

Reconstructive-Urology and Urogyn Uses​

Diagnostic​

  • Hematuria workup. Visible hematuria generally warrants evaluation; AUA/SUFU 2025 microhematuria care is risk-stratified. Cystoscopy is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk patients, but appropriately counseled intermediate-risk patients may use a validated urine marker or cytology to help decide whether to defer it, with repeat urinalysis follow-up; low- and negligible-risk patients initially have repeat urinalysis.[8][30]
  • NMIBC surveillance. Flexible cystoscopy is the dominant office modality.[9][8][10]
  • Selected recurrent UTI with atypical features or concern for structural disease. Ordonez 2022 reported abnormalities in 84/113 (74%) postmenopausal women already selected for cystoscopy at a tertiary center, often trigonitis (67%). This is not the expected diagnostic yield in uncomplicated rUTI: AUA/CUA/SUFU 2025 advises against routine cystoscopy for its index patient.[11][31]
  • LUTS or pelvic-pain workup. Clinically relevant findings in 11.5% of patients investigated for profound LUTS, recurrent UTI or pain.[12]
  • Intraoperative ureteral patency assessment after prolapse repair, hysterectomy, sacrocolpopexy, fistula repair; see the AUGS 2018 consensus on cystoscopy at prolapse repair.[13]
  • Suspected mesh erosion or intraluminal exposure after MUS or transvaginal mesh; retroflexion may help inspect the bladder neck or anterior wall, while a rigid angled lens is another option.[3]
  • Difficult catheterization or failed urethral access. Flexible cystoscopy with guidewire-assisted catheter placement is one option when anatomy and equipment permit; avoid forcing blind instrumentation. Filiforms and followers remain a separate technique and are not universally superseded.

Therapeutic (in-office, working-channel)​

  • Ureteral stent removal. This is one of the most common office indications, and grasper-integrated single-use platforms (Ambu aScope, Pusen) are designed for it.[14][15]
  • Small bladder-tumor fulguration with an Nd:YAG or holmium fiber.
  • Ureteral catheter or guidewire placement prior to OR stenting or before ESWL.
  • Foreign-body retrieval via grasper.
  • DVIU of small distal strictures with laser fiber.
  • Botulinum-toxin intradetrusor injection in selected office workflows.

Technique — Office Flexible Cystoscopy​

  1. Position. Supine (men, legs flat or slightly apart) or frog-leg supine (women); dorsal lithotomy not required.[1]
  2. Sterile prep and appropriate lubrication or anesthesia. Intraurethral 2% lidocaine gel can modestly reduce pain in men versus plain lubricant in Raskolnikov's 12-trial meta-analysis (n = 1,549; SMD −0.22, 95% CI −0.39 to −0.05), particularly with longer dwell times. Do not apply that male-trial estimate as a universal effect in women.[16]
  3. Allow time according to the chosen anesthetic and local protocol; one small Losco 2011 trial found no added comfort from a 3-minute delay, whereas the broader Raskolnikov analysis suggested benefit with longer dwell. Neither establishes one mandatory dwell time.[16][17]
  4. Pass under direct vision. Penis at approximately 60° in males to straighten the urethra; navigate penile, then bulbar, then membranous, then prostatic, then bladder neck.
  5. Distend with irrigant. Systematic inspection: trigone, then ureteral orifices (confirm bilateral efflux), then posterior, lateral, dome and anterior walls; retroflex to inspect bladder neck and anterior wall.

Flexible vs Rigid Cystoscopy​

FeatureFlexibleRigid
OpticsFiberoptic or digital chip-on-tipRod-lens; quality depends on scope, processor and display
CaliberVaries by model; current Ambu example 16.2 FrVaries by model; current Storz cysto-urethroscope example 17 Fr[29]
Tip deflection / retroflexionYes — 180°+None — requires 70° / 120° lens swap
Pain — menLess pain: 58.7% pain-free vs 24% with rigid in Seklehner 2015 (300 cystoscopies)[34]More painful
Pain — womenMixed findings: a randomized trial (Quiroz 2012, n = 100) found no significant difference in pain scores, whereas Casteleijn 2017 found lower pain with flexible[32][35]Patient and technique factors matter
AnesthesiaTopical lidocaine gelLocal for diagnostic; regional / GA for operative
PositionSupine / frog-leg often feasibleLithotomy common for operative work; patient/procedure-dependent
Operative capabilityModel- and accessory-specific; biopsy, selected treatment and stent removal possibleLarger compatible operating systems and a separate resectoscope for TURBT/resection
ReprocessingReusable models follow validated instructions; single-use models must not be reprocessedReusable components follow their model-specific instructions[29]

Single-Use vs Reusable Flexible Cystoscopes — The Modern Decision​

Single-use digital flexible cystoscopes are now a major segment:

  • Holmes 2023 RCT (n = 101, noninferiority). Ambu aScope 4 Cysto versus Olympus CYF-VH met its prespecified −10% noninferiority margin for completion (100% versus 98%), image quality (96% versus 100%), light (98% versus 100%) and maneuverability (98% versus 100%). This supports those study devices and tasks, not every single-use product.[18]
  • Seyam 2020 (1,211 cystoscopies in 390 patients, 97.7% for prior malignancy). Observational cancer-detection rates were 14.4% disposable versus 15.6% reusable (p = 0.574); a nonsignificant difference is not a device-equivalence trial.[14]
  • Anderson 2024 SR (21 studies, n = 3,943). No difference in postoperative infection (4.0% versus 4.4%, p = 0.87) or overall complications (11.5% versus 11.9%, p = 0.88).[19]
  • Per-case cost (Assmus 2022 tertiary center). $185 single-use versus $272 reusable; approximately $39K per year savings with predominantly single-use scopes.[20]
  • Cost-effectiveness is volume- and setting-dependent. In Su 2021's micro-costing model, reusable scopes were cheaper for stent removal only at about 350 or more procedures a year with 10 scopes. That threshold rests on one model's assumptions and is not a universal switch point; local repair, reprocessing, staffing and acquisition costs determine the comparison.[15][21]
  • Environmental. Boucheron's local accounting reported 200 g versus 800 g procedural waste and about 60 L reusable-scope reprocessing water in its setting; this is not a full universal life-cycle comparison and can change with reprocessing and disposal systems.[22]

Enhanced Imaging — In the Office​

  • Blue-light flexible cystoscopy (HAL-PDD). Daneshmand 2018 phase-III multicenter trial: detected recurrence missed by white light in 20.6% (13/63), p < 0.01.[10] Sari Motlagh 2024 surveillance meta found no significant overall recurrence-detection difference versus WLC (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82–1.41); NNT approximately 100.[23]
  • Narrow-band imaging (NBI). Ye 2015 reported higher detection sensitivity in its trial; the result should not be treated as a universal sensitivity range. Current EAU review supports improved detection but notes that randomized TURBT studies did not show a consistent overall recurrence benefit, apart from a low-risk subgroup signal.[24][25][26][33]

Antibiotic Prophylaxis​

The AUA best-practice statement does not recommend antimicrobial prophylaxis for simple outpatient cystoscopy in healthy adults without infectious signs or symptoms. EAU strongly recommends against prophylaxis for flexible or rigid urethrocystoscopy. Higher-risk patients and therapeutic procedures need an individualized plan.[27][33] In the Zeng 2019 Cochrane review, prophylaxis may reduce symptomatic UTI (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28–0.86; low-certainty evidence), with no demonstrated effect on systemic UTI. EAU cites the low absolute risk of postprocedural UTI, the volume of procedures and antimicrobial resistance (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.04–2.87) as the basis for its recommendation.[28][33]

Limitations​

  • No operative capability for resection. TURBT, BNI, full DVIU require the rigid scope / resectoscope and Sachse urethrotome.
  • Reduced visualization in active bleeding. Large clot burden obscures the view; switch to rigid for clot evacuation.
  • Smaller working channel. Limits instrument size and reduces irrigation flow when an instrument is passed.
  • Fiberoptic image quality inferior to rod-lens; digital chip-on-tip has largely closed this gap.
  • Cumbersome drainage. Withdrawing irrigant or draining the bladder is awkward versus a rigid sheath.

See also: Rigid Cystoscope, Sachse Urethrotome, Guidewires, Open-Ended Ureteral Catheters, Double-J Stent, Filiforms & Followers.

Videos​

Flexible Cystoscopy: Procedural Techniques and Teaching Applications
AUA Core Curriculum (2025)
Flexible Cystoscopy: Step-by-Step Video Guide
AUA Core Curriculum (2025)

References​

1. Safiullah S, Lama DJ, Patel R, Clayman RV. "Procedural module: flexible cystoscopy." J Endourol. 2018;32(S1):S2–6. doi:10.1089/end.2017.0706

2. Kennedy TJ, Preminger GM. "Flexible cystoscopy." Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15(3):525–8.

3. Kavoussi LR, Clayman RV. "Office flexible cystoscopy." Urol Clin North Am. 1988;15(4):601–8.

4. Grasso M, Beaghler M, Bagley DH, Strup S. "Actively deflectable, flexible cystoscopes: no longer solely a diagnostic instrument." J Endourol. 1993;7(6):527–30. doi:10.1089/end.1993.7.527

5. Okhunov Z, Hruby GW, Mirabile G, et al. "Prospective comparison of flexible fiberoptic and digital cystoscopes." Urology. 2009;74(2):427–30. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2009.01.007

6. Lusch A, Liss MA, Greene P, et al. "Comparison of optics and performance of a distal sensor high definition cystoscope, a distal sensor standard definition cystoscope, and a fiberoptic cystoscope." Urology. 2013;82(6):1226–30. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.06.033

7. Borin JF, Abdelshehid CS, Clayman RV. "Comparison of resolution, contrast, and color differentiation among fiberoptic and digital flexible cystoscopes." J Endourol. 2006;20(1):54–8. doi:10.1089/end.2006.20.54

8. Barocas DA, Lotan Y, Matulewicz RS, et al. "Updates to microhematuria: AUA/SUFU guideline (2025)." J Urol. 2025;213(5):547–57. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004490

9. Lenis AT, Lec PM, Chamie K, Mshs MD. "Bladder cancer: a review." JAMA. 2020;324(19):1980–91. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17598

10. Daneshmand S, Patel S, Lotan Y, et al. "Efficacy and safety of blue light flexible cystoscopy with hexaminolevulinate in the surveillance of bladder cancer: a phase III, comparative, multicenter study." J Urol. 2018;199(5):1158–65. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.096

11. Ordonez J, Christie AL, Zimmern PE. "Role of flexible cystoscopy in the management of postmenopausal women with recurrent urinary tract infections." Urology. 2022;169:65–9. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.07.040

12. Howles S, Tempest H, Doolub G, et al. "Flexible cystoscopy findings in patients investigated for profound lower urinary tract symptoms, recurrent urinary tract infection, and pain." J Endourol. 2012;26(11):1468–72. doi:10.1089/end.2012.0139

13. Cohen SA, Carberry CL, Smilen SW. "American Urogynecologic Society consensus statement: cystoscopy at the time of prolapse repair." Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(4):258–9. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000529

14. Seyam RM, Zeitouni OM, Alsibai TM, et al. "The grasper-integrated disposable flexible cystoscope is comparable to the reusable, flexible cystoscope for the detection of bladder cancer." Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):13495. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70424-0

15. Su ZT, Huang MM, Matlaga BR, Hutfless S, Koo K. "A micro-costing analysis of outpatient flexible cystoscopy: implications for adoption of single-use flexible cystoscopes." World J Urol. 2021;39(11):4275–81. doi:10.1007/s00345-021-03724-3

16. Raskolnikov D, Brown B, Holt SK, et al. "Reduction of pain during flexible cystoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis." J Urol. 2019;202(6):1136–42. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000399

17. Losco G, Antoniou S, Mark S. "Male flexible cystoscopy: does waiting after insertion of topical anaesthetic lubricant improve patient comfort?" BJU Int. 2011;108 Suppl 2:42–4. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10696.x

18. Holmes A, O'Kane D, Wombwell A, Grills R. "Clinical utility of a single-use flexible cystoscope compared with a standard reusable device: a randomized noninferiority study." J Endourol. 2023;37(1):80–4. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0210

19. Anderson S, Patterson K, Skolarikos A, et al. "Perspectives on technology: to use or to reuse, that is the endoscopic question — a systematic review of single-use endoscopes." BJU Int. 2024;133(1):14–24. doi:10.1111/bju.16206

20. Assmus MA, Krambeck AE, Lee MS, et al. "Cost-effectiveness of 90-day single-use flexible cystoscope trial: single center micro-costing analysis and user satisfaction." Urology. 2022;167:61–6. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2022.05.039

21. Foo JCH, Lim EJ, Lee SZ, Yong J. "To throw, or not to throw: threshold cost analysis of the single-use flexible cystoscopy model in a high-volume urology centre." ANZ J Surg. 2025. doi:10.1111/ans.70451

22. Boucheron T, Lechevallier E, Gondran-Tellier B, et al. "Cost and environmental impact of disposable flexible cystoscopes compared to reusable devices." J Endourol. 2022;36(10):1317–21. doi:10.1089/end.2022.0201

23. Sari Motlagh R, Ghoreifi A, Yanagisawa T, et al. "Surveillance of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer with blue-light cystoscopy: a meta-analysis." BJU Int. 2024;134(4):526–33. doi:10.1111/bju.16364

24. Remmelink MJ, Rip Y, Nieuwenhuijzen JA, et al. "Advanced optical imaging techniques for bladder cancer detection and diagnosis: a systematic review." BJU Int. 2024;134(6):890–905. doi:10.1111/bju.16471

25. Ye Z, Hu J, Song X, et al. "A comparison of NBI and WLI cystoscopy in detecting non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer: a prospective, randomized and multi-center study." Sci Rep. 2015;5:10905. doi:10.1038/srep10905

26. Holzbeierlein JM, Bixler BR, Buckley DI, et al. "Diagnosis and treatment of non-muscle invasive bladder cancer: AUA/SUO guideline 2024 amendment." J Urol. 2024;211(4):533–8. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003846

27. Lightner DJ, Wymer K, Sanchez J, Kavoussi L. "Best practice statement on urologic procedures and antimicrobial prophylaxis." J Urol. 2020;203(2):351–6. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000000509

28. Zeng S, Zhang Z, Bai Y, Sun Y, Xu C. "Antimicrobial agents for preventing urinary tract infections in adults undergoing cystoscopy." Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2:CD012305. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012305.pub2

29. Ambu. aScope 5 Cysto HD product specifications and IFU download, IFU V03 November 2024, English pp. 4–11; and Olympus, CYF-VH specifications. Model examples, not generic dimensions.

30. American Urological Association/SUFU. Microhematuria guideline, amended 2025, Guideline Statements 10, 12–16; relevant statements read, not full tables.

31. American Urological Association/CUA/SUFU. Recurrent Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections in Women guideline, amended 2025, index-patient cystoscopy statement; full guideline tables not accessed.

32. Casteleijn NF, Vriesema JL, Stomps SP, van Balen OLWB, Cornel EB. The effect of office based flexible and rigid cystoscopy on pain experience in female patients. Investig Clin Urol. 2017;58:48–53. doi:10.4111/icu.2017.58.1.48. Indexed abstract; full paper not accessed.

33. European Association of Urology. Urological Infections guideline §3.18.2.b and recommendations, and NMIBC Diagnosis §5.12, accessed September 2026.

34. Seklehner S, Remzi M, Fajkovic H, et al. "Prospective multi-institutional study analyzing pain perception of flexible and rigid cystoscopy in men." Urology. 2015;85(4):737–41. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.01.007

35. Quiroz LH, Shobeiri SA, Nihira MA, Brady J, Wild RA. "Randomized trial comparing office flexible to rigid cystoscopy in women." Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(11):1625–30. doi:10.1007/s00192-012-1777-0