ArticleScientific reports2018
Outcomes of ureteroscopy miniaturization on tissue damage and tissue hypoxia in a pig model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel 7.5 single-use flexible ureteroscope with in-built temperature and pressure sensors: Is there a limit to reliability and safety? An in vivo experimental study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Thermal safety during retrograde intrarenal surgery and laser lithotripsy. Changes of intrarenal temperature while using direct-in-scope-suction : an in-vitro study by young academic urologists and EAU endourology sections.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Microureteroscopy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones in pediatric patients younger than 3 years of age.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Miniaturization of ureteroscopy materials is intended to decrease tissue damage. However, tissue hypoxia and the gross and microscopic effects on tissue have not been adequately assessed. We compared the gross and microscopic effects of micro-ureteroscopy (m-URS) and conventional ureteroscopy (URS) on the urinary tract. We employed 14 pigs of the Large White race. URS was performed in one of the ureters with an 8/9.8 F ureteroscope, while a 4.85 F m-URS sheath was used in the contralateral ureter. Gross assessment of ureteral wall damage and ureteral orifice damage was performed. For microscopic assessment hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunohistochemistry for detection of tissue hypoxia were conducted. Regarding the macroscopic assessment of ureteral damage, substantial and significant differences were recorded using URS (C = 0.8), but not with m-URS. Microscopic assessment after staining with hematoxylin-eosin revealed greater epithelial desquamation in the URS group (p < 0.05). Pimonidazole staining revealed greater hypoxia in the epithelial cells than in the remainder of the ureteral layers. We conclude that m-URS causes less damage to the ureteral orifice than URS. Histopathological findings show m-URS reduces ureteral epithelial damage compared with conventional ureteroscopy. Both URS and m-URS cause cellular hypoxia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.