Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36188640›Full record

ReviewJournal of medicine and life2022

Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review.

Bogdan Geavlete, Cristian Mareș, Răzvan Mulțescu, Dragoș Georgescu, Petrișor Geavlete

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medicine and life, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Bogdan GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Sanador Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Cristian MareșDepartment of Urology, Emergency Clinical Hospital Sfântul Ioan, Bucharest, Romania.
Răzvan MulțescuDepartment of Urology, Sanador Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Dragoș GeorgescuDepartment of Urology, Sanador Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Petrișor GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Sanador Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Clinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest · ROSpitalul Clinic de Urgenta Sfantul Ioan · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (suFURSs) in daily practice tends to overcome the main limitations of reusable ureteroscopes (reFURSs), in terms of high acquisition costs, maintenance, breakages and repairing costs, reprocessing and sterilization, as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is promoted as first-line treatment of renal stones in most cases. A hybrid strategy implies having both instruments in the armamentarium of endourology and choosing the best strategy for cost-efficiency and protecting expensive reusable instruments in selected high-risk for breakage cases such as large stones of the inferior calyx, a steep infundibulopelvic angle or narrow infundibulum, or abnormal anatomy as in horseshoe and ectopic kidney. In terms of safety and efficiency, data present suFURSs as a safe alternative considering operating time, stone-free, and complication rates. An important aspect is highlighted by several authors about reusable instrument disinfection as various pathogens are still detected after proper sterilization. This comprehensive narrative review aims to analyze available data comparing suFURSs and reFURSs, considering economic, technical, and operative aspects of the two types of instruments, as well as the strategy of adopting a hybrid approach to selecting the most appropriate flexible ureteroscope in each case.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiUreteroscopesHumansUreteroscopyflexible ureteroscopyhybrid techniquerenal stonesreusablesingle-use

Identifiers

PMID36188640
PMCPMC9514813
OpenAlexW4300690943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.