SynthesisInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with or without ureteral access sheath: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comparison of safety and efficacy of negative pressure aspiration assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery and traditional percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones larger than 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Real-world DISS practice combined with and without access sheath: insights from the global DISS dataset: a EAU endourology study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Prostatic morphometric parameters and ureteral access sheath placement failure during retrograde intrarenal surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Selective Omission of Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: Surgical and Safety Outcomes from a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical risk factors and machine learning-assisted interpretation of ureteral access sheath insertion failure: a multicenter study and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Does the use of a ureteral access sheath improve perioperative outcomes in ureteroscopy? A real-world multi-institutional study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor: "Evaluation of a fluoroscopy-free, ureteral access sheath-free, and stent-free approach to retrograde intrarenal surgery".World journal of urology · 2025Article
- With great power comes great risk: High ureteral stricture rate after high-power, high-frequency Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy in ureteroscopy.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Status study of clinical application of ureteral access sheath in urology: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Review
- Which is the best laser for ureteroscopy? A Comprehensive Review.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
- Telesurgery and the International Brazilian Journal of Urology in 2024.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
- The use of Silodosin in Ureterolithiasis is the Hot Topic in this Number of International Brazilian Journal of Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a medical device that enables repeated entrance into the ureter and collecting system during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Its impact on stone-free rates, ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing RIRS with versus without UAS for urolithiasis management. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes from retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stone extraction with or without ureteral access sheath (UAS); evaluating stone-free rate (SFR), ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes of UAS use in RIRS for urolithiasis treatment. Articles published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively.
resultsFive RCTs comprising 466 procedures were included. Of these, 246 (52.7%) utilized UAS. The follow-up ranged from 1 week to 1 month. UAS reduced the incidence of postoperative fever (RR 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.84; p=0.009), and postoperative infection (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.83; p=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of SFR (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.11; p=0.10), ureteral injuries (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.75; p=0.11), operative time (MD 3.56 minutes; 95% CI -4.15 to 11.27 minutes; p=0.36), or length of stay (MD 0.32 days; 95% CI -0.42 to 1.07 days; p=0.40).
conclusionUAS leads to a lower rate of post-operative fever and infection. However, UAS did not significantly reduce or increase the SFR or the rate of ureteral injuries during RIRS for patients with urolithiasis. The use of UAS should be considered to decrease the risk of infectious complications, particularly in those who may be at higher risk for such complications.
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.