ArticleBMC urology2022
The dilemma of 12/14F ureteral access sheath (UAS) usage: a case control study.
Article in BMC urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utilization of Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Pooled it
- Ureteral access sheath. Does it improve the results of flexible ureteroscopy? A narrative review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe insertion of a ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a frequent procedure during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) to facilitate kidney stone treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of 12/14 French (F) UAS on fURS outcomes.
methodsWe performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of fURS procedures conducted at the Department of Urology (University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany) for kidney stone treatment via lithotripsy or basket stone retrieval between September 2013 and June 2017. Uni- and multivariate analyses were done with the help of RStudio (Version 1.0.136) software.
resultsIn total, 283 consecutive fURS were analyzed. UAS was applied in 98 cases (34.63%). The insertion of UAS was preferred in cases with multiple kidney stones and larger median maximal stone diameter (p < 0.05). UAS usage correlated with elevated radiation exposure in seconds (94 vs. 61; p < 0.0001), prolonged operation time in minutes (99 vs. 66, p < 0.0001), length of hospital stay over 48 h (LOS, 22.49% vs. 10.81%; p = 0.015), more frequent postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS, 13.27% vs. 4.32%; p = 0.013) and lower postoperative stone-free rates (60.20% vs. 78.92%; p = 0.0013). Moreover, we conducted uni- and multivariate subgroup analysis for cases with multiple kidney stones (≥ 2) and comparable stone burden; UAS was inserted in 48.3% of these cases (71/147). On multivariate logistic regression, UAS insertion was statistically associated with prolonged operation time in minutes (101 vs. 77; p = 0.004). No statistical differences regarding radiation exposure, stone-free rates, postoperative SIRS rates or LOS were noted between UAS and non-UAS patients with multiple kidney stones of similar size (p > 0.05).
conclusions12/14F UAS does not seem to improve overall outcomes in fURS for kidney stones. In patients with multiple kidney stones it may be associated with elevated operation time without a clear benefit in terms of improved stone-free status or reduced perioperative complication rate. Further prospective randomized studies to specify the indications for UAS usage are urgently needed.
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.