ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: an international multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 76 papers, 9 of them syntheses 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.
Tip Bendable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath vs. Traditional Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Stone Surgery (RIRS): Study Protocol of a Multicentre, Prospective, Single-blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial
Flexible Ureteroscopy Using a Tip-Bendable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of 2-3 cm Renal Stones: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
76 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Intraoperative positioning strategies to improve stone-free outcomes during retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Suction-assisted ureteroscopy compared with traditional ureteroscopy for renal stones ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction access sheaths versus traditional access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Enhanced stone-free rates with suctioning ureteral access sheath vs. traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of the flexible negative-pressure ureteral sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- F-URS with FANS versus mPCNL for 2-3 cm UUTS: a RCT with a subgroup analysis of 2-2.5 cm stones.BJU international · 2026Trial
- Comparative evaluation of flexible and navigable suction sheath (FANS), percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), and conventional ureteral access sheath (UAS) during retrograde intrarenal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Safety and efficacy of a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath vs. a conventional intelligent pressure-control sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery for infection-related renal calculi.International urology and nephrology · 2026Trial
- Thermal determinants during in situ lithotripsy of nonrelocatable impacted ureteral calculi using a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath: an in vitro study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Objective assessment of turbidity during laser lithotripsy: standardization of a dedicated in vitro experimental model.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Preoperative CT-Derived Stone Burden Metrics for Predicting Stone-Free Status and Operative Time After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Stone-Event-Free Survival After Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy According to Residual Fragment Size: Zero Residual Fragment Indicates a Good Prognosis.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Paradigm shifts in fluid management using suction irrigation pressure autoregulating systems in modern flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: an evidence-based narrative from EAU Endourology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- Article
- Flexible ureteroscopy with a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones larger than 2 cm in patients with a solitary kidney: a propensity score-matched and win ratio analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Effects of a head-up position on stone retrieval efficiency and intrarenal pressure using a flexible navigable suction access sheath: an in vitro study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the main treatments for upper urinary tract stones. The Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS) serves as a supplementary tool, facilitating direct kidney access during RIRS. High quality of evidence comparing tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS) with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal and ureteral stones is lacking. The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of S-UAS with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. Methods: An international, multicenter, and superiority randomized controlled trial included 320 intention-to-treat patients across 8 medical centers in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Turkey from August 2023 to February 2024. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years old with renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. RIRS was performed using either S-UAS or traditional UAS. The primary outcome was the immediately stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included SFR 3 months after operation, operating time, hospital stay, auxiliary procedures, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo grading system), and improvement in the Quality of Life (QoL) score. Differences between proportions [risk difference (RD)]/means [mean difference (MD)] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05952635. Findings: The S-UAS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediately SFR (81.3% versus 49.4%; RD 31.9%; 95% CI 22.5%-41.7%; p = 0.004) compared to the traditional UAS group, as determined by the one-side superiority test. Additionally, the S-UAS group exhibited a higher SFR at 3 months post-operation (87.5% versus 70.0%; RD 17.5%; 95% CI 8.7%-26.3%; p < 0.001), lower postoperative fever rate (RD -11.9%; 95% CI -18.7% to -4.9%; p < 0.001), reduced use of stone baskets (RD -70.6%; 95% CI -77.8% to -63.5%; p < 0.001), and better QoL improvement (MD 7.25; 95% CI 2.21-12.29; p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time, hospital stay, or the need for second-stage RIRS. Interpretation: In RIRS for upper urinary tract stones ≤30 mm, S-UAS exhibited superior performance compared to traditional UAS, demonstrating higher SFR, reduced postoperative fever rate, and improved QoL outcomes. S-UAS emerges as a prudent and advantageous alternative to traditional UAS for RIRS. Funding: National Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Medicine and Health Program.
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.