Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39217581›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Direct in-scope suction: an in vitro evaluation of a single use flexible ureteroscope with integrated suction capability.

Aideen Madden, Carlos Altez, Jordi Peña Lueza, Răzvan-Ionut Popescu, Johan Cabrera, Mariela Corrales, Olivier Traxer

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

7 authors.

Aideen MaddenGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France. Aideenmadden1@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9068-5426
Carlos AltezUrology Service, University Hospital Complex, La Coruña, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5656-4604
Jordi Peña LuezaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Arnau de Vilanova, Lleida, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9407-5515
Răzvan-Ionut PopescuDepartment of Urology, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-2816
Johan CabreraGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-0576-6352
Mariela CorralesGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1461-8464
Olivier TraxerGRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 75020, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the stone clearance rate and limitations of a novel integrated suction capability within a single-use flexible ureteroscope according to stone particle size.

methodsVarying sized stone particles were created using a stone phantom (Begostone Plus, Bego ©, Lincoln, RI, USA). Particle size ranged as follows: 63-125 µm, 125-250 µm, 250-500 µm, 500 µm- 1 mm and 1-2 mm. These were mixed with Normal saline (0.9%) to mimic in vivo conditions. The suction enabled single-use flexible ureteroscope (Pusen, Zhuhai, China) was used to aspirate stone fragments in three trials. Firstly, aspiration of 5 g of each dust range was attempted. Secondly, a direct comparison of the integrated suction to a manual syringe technique was applied to 1 g of each size range. Finally, aspiration was applied to 5 g of a heterogenous 1:1:1:1:1 mixture. Endoscopic clearance rate (g/min) and number of blockages were recorded. Each challenge was repeated three times.

resultsThe integrated suction cleared 100% of dust < 250 µm. Endoscopic clearance rates were significantly faster than manual aspiration (3.01 g/min versus 0.41 g/min) for dust between 125 and 250 µm (p = 0.008). Complete endoscopic clearance by 180 s (without encountering test limiting blockages) was unsuccessful for particles > 250 µm. Clearance rates were greatly limited by stone particle size heterogeneity above 250 µm, to 0.09 g/min.

conclusionThis technology works better in vitro than previously DISS evaluated methods when challenged by stone dust < 250 µm. However, this adaptation is significantly challenged in the presence of stone dust particles > 250 µm.

Indexed as

UreteroscopesEquipment DesignHumansIn Vitro TechniquesParticle SizeSuctionUreteroscopyDirect-in-scope suctionDISSSuctionUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID39217581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.