ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024
First worldwide report on safety and efficacy of using small 7.5 Fr scope for pediatric ureteroscopy: prospective pilot series from Europe.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Novel 6.3 Fr Ureteroscope in Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS): Comparative Experience with Conventional Ureteroscopes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Successful Treatment with a 6.3-Fr Disposable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in a 50-Year-Old Man with Large Bilateral Ureteral Stones and Hydronephrosis.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Small Diameter (7.5 Fr) Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopy with Direct In-Scope Suction (DISSJournal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Although pediatric urolithiasis remains relatively uncommon, its global prevalence is on the rise. Technological advances have led to miniaturization of instruments especially in the form of single use scopes. As the evidence on the use of small single use ureteroscopes in children is scarce, we have conducted a pilot two-center study to analyze the outcomes of pediatric patients treated with the Pusen 7.5 Fr single use scopes at our institutions. Material and methods: This study included consecutive pediatric patients with urinary stones treated with the small Pusen 7.5 Fr single use ureteroscope. The study was conducted at two large European tertiary endourology centers that specialize in pediatric kidney stone management. Patient data and outcomes were prospectively collected, and analysis was performed regarding patient demographics, stone parameters, as well as stone free rate (SFR), operating time, and complications. Results: In this pilot study, 26 patients were included with a median age of 12 years (7.0-16.0) and a male to female ratio of 14:12. The mean cumulative stone size was 15.15 mm (SD ±11.1) and multiple stones were present in 9 (34.6%) patients. Pre-operative stent, access sheath and post-operative stent usage was done in 12 (46.2%), 23 (88.5%) and 13 (50%) patients respectively. The median operative time was 47 minutes (IQR: 40.0-63.8). Following the initial procedure 24 (92.3%) patients were stone free, while no intra or postoperative complications were observed. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the use of the small 7.5 single use ureteroscope is safe and efficient for the treatment of urinary stones in pediatric patients with high stone-free rates and no complications noted in our series. While this might become a standard of care in future, to confirm and validate our findings further studies with larger cohorts are warranted.
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.