Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39070176›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: an international multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study.

Wei Zhu, Shusheng Liu, Jianwei Cao, Hao Wang, Hui Liang, Kehua Jiang, Yu Cui, Chu Ann Chai, Emre Burak Sahinler, Albert Aquino and 12 more

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05952635 nacompletednot on this map

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityRan2023 to 2024Enrolled320ConditionsKidney StoneArmsTip bendable suction ureteral access sheath
NCT07306819 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

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

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled120ConditionsStone, Renal, Stone, Urinary, Stone, KidneyArmsmini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, Flexible Uerteroscopy with Tip-Bendable Suction Sheath
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

76 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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 · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Wei ZhuDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Shusheng LiuDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Jianwei CaoDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Hao WangDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Hui LiangDepartment of Urology, Xinchang County Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shaoxing, Zhejiang, China.
Kehua JiangDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.
Yu CuiDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Chu Ann ChaiUrology Unit, Department of Surgery, University Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Emre Burak SahinlerDepartment of Urology, Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Albert AquinoDepartment of Urology, Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila, Philippines.
Giorgio MazzonInstitute of Urology, University College Hospitals of London, London, United Kingdom.
Wen ZhongDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhijian ZhaoDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Lin ZhangDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jie DingDepartment of Urology, Xinhua Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qing WangDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, Guizhou, China.
Yizhou WangDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Kelven Weijing ChenDepartment of Urology, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Yongda LiuDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Simon ChoongInstitute of Urology, University College Hospitals of London, London, United Kingdom.
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Guohua ZengDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Randomized controlled trialRetrograde intrarenal stone surgerySuctionTip bendableUreteral access sheath

Identifiers

PMID39070176
PMCPMC11277316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.