ArticleBMC urology2024
Comparison of the safety of flexible ureteroscopy with the different irrigation methods in a 3D print kidney model.
Article in BMC 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.
- Article
- A novel 7.5 single-use flexible ureteroscope with in-built temperature and pressure sensors: Is there a limit to reliability and safety? An in vivo experimental study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Thermal safety during retrograde intrarenal surgery and laser lithotripsy. Changes of intrarenal temperature while using direct-in-scope-suction : an in-vitro study by young academic urologists and EAU endourology sections.World journal of urology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare intrarenal pressure (IRP) and irrigation flow by varying suspended water heights and hand-held pressure pumping during flexible ureteroscopy using an in vitro 3D printed kidney model.
methodsA 3D-printed silicone model was used to simulate the kidney. The ureteral access sheath(UAS) was connected to the kidney model and positioned at the ureteropelvic junction. Central venous pressure tubing was used to monitor the pressure in the renal pelvis under different conditions. Sheath sizes of 12Fr and 14Fr were tested with flexible ureteroscope (fURS) sizes of 7.5, 8.5, and 9.5Fr, respectively. The irrigation was gravity-based, with suspended water heights set at 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 cm. The manual pumping as another set of measurement is used to measure the maximum intrarenal pressure.
resultsUsing a 12Fr sheath with a 9.5Fr fURS loading without additional accessories resulted in IRP ranging from 8.4 to 17.5 cmH2O, while manual pumping perfusion pressure exceeded 60 cmH2O. Loading a 200-um laser fiber reduced the pressure to 6.4-10.5 cmH2O, and using a stone basket decreased it to 4.0-5.0 cmH2O. Using a 14Fr sheath with a 9.5Fr fURS resulted in an IRP of 2.5-6.0 cmH2O, compared to 17 cmH2O with manual pumping. With a 12Fr sheath and a 7.5Fr fURS, the IRP ranged from 5.4 to 8.2 cmH2O, while manual pumping resulted in 25.5 cmH2O. With a 14Fr sheath and a 7.5Fr fURS, the IRP ranged from 1.5 to 4.3 cmH2O, and manual pumping resulted in 9.0 cmH2O.
conclusionWhen using a UAS in a flexible ureteroscopy, the IRP can be maintained within a safe range with different fURS/UAS combos with a suspended water height of less than 180 cm. However, with specific fURS/UAS(9.5Fr/12Fr) combos, the IRP exceeded the safe limit when using manual pumping. Gravity irrigation with a suspended water height of less than 180 cm is safe in this simulated clinical environment.
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.