ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
Intrarenal pressure study using 7.5 French flexible ureteroscope with or without ureteral access sheath in an ex-vivo porcine kidney model.
Article in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- FANS-UAS-assisted RIRS under local anesthesia: promising results, but are we ready for definitive conclusions?International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- Animal models for calcium oxalate kidney stone research.Zoological research · 2026Review
- Intrarenal pressure and stone fragment retrieval efficiency using foot-controlled irrigation in combination with a flexible, navigable Suction ureteral access sheath: an in vitro kidney model study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Intrarenal pelvic pressure and renal temperature during 6.3Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope surgery: an in vitro experiment.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Use of novel tip-bendable suction ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones can reduce the risk of postoperative sepsis.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Does the use of a ureteral access sheath improve perioperative outcomes in ureteroscopy? A real-world multi-institutional study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Intrarenal pressure variations during flexible ureteroscopy in a porcine kidney model: impact of ureteral access sheath types and irrigation methods.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Status study of clinical application of ureteral access sheath in urology: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery combined with flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath versus traditional ureteral access sheath for 1-2 cm lower calyceal renal stones: a prospective, randomized controlled study.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Article
- Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Lithiasis Using Suctioning Devices: A Shift in Paradigm?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction7.5F digital fURS and 9.5/11.5F ureteral access sheaths (UAS), both conventional (cUAS) and vacuum-assisted (vaUAS), are commercially available. Irrigation increases intrarenal pressure (IRP). This study analyzes the IRP with various irrigation rates using 7.5F fURS without UAS or with either cUAS or vaUAS in an ex-vivo porcine model. Pyelo-tubular backflow was also studied during these experiments. MATERIALS AND
methods11 porcine kidneys were used. 7.5F digital fURS was tested without UAS and with 9.5/11.5F cUAS and vaUAS. 6F pressure monitor catheters were placed into the upper and lower calyces. IRPs were recorded under different irrigation rates. When vaUAS was used, the air vent was either open or closed. 300 mmHg aspiration pressure was chosen. Lastly, contrasted irrigation fluid was delivered until IRP reached above 30 mmHg. Fluoroscopy images were obtained at 5 mmHg intervals over this threshold to study the pyelo-tubular backflow.
resultsUsing cUAS, IRP reached 30 mmHg with irrigation rates between 60 and 70 cc/min. Using vaUAS with vent closed, IRP never exceeded 10 mmHg with irrigation up to 120 cc/min. vaUAS with vent open performed marginally better than cUAS. fURS without UAS performed better than cUAS. Pyelo-tubular backflow became prominent at 40 mmHg.
conclusionIn an ex-vivo porcine model, 7.5F fURS could be used safely without UAS with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. The safety margin dropped to 60-70 cc/min with cUAS. vaUAS with vent closed maintained IRP < 10 mmHg with irrigation rates up to 120 cc/min. Pyelo-tubular backflow was observed with IRP > 35 mmHg.
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.