ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Stone size on endoscopic view as a predictor of successful stone retrieval during flexible ureteroscopy: an in vitro analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBasketing plays an important role during flexible ureteroscopy, but it can be time-consuming, especially when fragments are too large to pass through the ureteral access sheath. We aim to present the optimal on-screen, endoscopic stone size that predicts successful basketing through various access sheaths.
methodsA tipless basket, individually extended to 5 mm from multiple ureteroscopes: (Flex-Xc, Karl Storz; Flex-X2s, Karl Storz; LithoVue, Boston Scientific; or URF-P6R, Olympus) and via differently sized access sheaths (10-12 Fr through 13-15 Fr), was used in retrieval attempts of various artificial stone sizes (2 mm through 5 mm). A relative endoscopic stone size was recorded as the stone's maximum diameter on endoscopic view compared to the total image diameter.
resultsBasketing of stones up to 2.5 mm, yielding relative endoscopic stone sizes of 0.38 (Flex-Xc), 0.30 (Flex-X2s), 0.32 (LithoVue), and 0.34 (URF-P6R), was successful using all access sheaths. Only the 12-14 Fr and greater sheaths allowed for successful basketing of 3 mm stones. Larger stones did not successfully pass through any of the access sheaths.
conclusionSuccessful stone retrieval can be predicted by estimating the stone's size on screen, which is influenced by the type of flexible ureteroscope and access sheath. In our testing, stones of approximately one-third of the screen size passed successfully in all cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33512571What 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.