ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Analysis of the effectiveness and safety of 7.5 Fr ultra-thin flexible ureteroscope combined with a tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath for the treatment of kidney stones.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 4 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Pooled it
- Pooled 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
- Is flexible navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) safer and more efficient than conventional sheaths? Italian multicentric experience.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Prognostic factors and the role of pelvic lymph node dissection in oligometastatic prostate cancer: a multicenter exploratory study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Patient satisfaction and scope size of flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary stones: A comparative study, multivariate analysis and subjective and objective evaluations.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stone Disease in Elderly Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Absence of independent prognostic impact of node status in M1 prostate cancer: implications from a SEER-based study.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy assisted by a flexible-tip negative pressure suction sheath for 2-4 cm renal calculi.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Flexible suction ureteral access sheaths vs. sheathless RIRS for renal and proximal ureteral stones: a comparative study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Initial clinical experience with 6.3 Fr single‑use flexible ureteroscope versus 8.5 Fr in retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath of variable diameters: a single‑center comparative study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- The role of preoperative ureteral diameter measurements in predicting difficult access during retrograde ıntrarenal surgery: a retrospective analysis of 234 patients.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Early clinical outcomes using a 6.3 Fr single use ureteroscope compared to a 7.5 Fr device.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Microvascular bypass for varicocele drainage: comment on Dou et al. Microscopic internal spermatic-inferior epigastric vein anastomosis for treating left varicocele.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of two tip flexible suctioning ureteral access sheaths combined with a 7.5Fr flexible ureteroscope: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Advancing stone treatment: the transformative impact of flexible navigable suction ureteral access sheath (fans) for inferior calyx calculi (<2 cm).Frontiers in urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of using a 7.5 Fr flexible ureteroscope (f-URS) with tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (TFS-UAS) versus a 9.2 Fr f-URS with traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) in the treatment of kidney stones.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 205 patients with kidney stones measuring 1.0-2.0 cm treated with 7.5 Fr and 9.2 Fr f-URS in the Urology Department of The Affiliated Dazu Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from November 2022 to November 2023. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. Among them, 78 patients were selected to use the 7.5 Fr f-URS, which was designated as the GroupA. The remaining 127 patients were selected to use the 9.2 Fr f-URS, which served as the GroupB. The study compared the operation duration, lithotripsy duration, surgical success rate, immediate postoperative stone-free rate (SFR), 1-month postoperative SFR, and the incidence rate of postoperative complications between the two patient groups.
resultsIn terms of demographic characteristics, the size of calculi, surgical success rate, and 1-month postoperative SFR, there was no statistically significant difference between GroupA and GroupB. However, GroupA demonstrated superior performance compared to GroupB in operation duration (48 (40.55) min vs 74 (56.94) min), lithotripsy duration (35 (27.43) min vs 59 (42.78) min), and immediate postoperative SFR (53.52% (38/71) vs 29.41% (35/119)), with statistically significant differences observed (P < 0.05). In terms of complication occurrence, GroupA reported 10 cases of minor (Grade 1) complications, whereas GroupB had 32 cases of minor (Grade 1) complications and 7 cases of severe complications (including 2 cases of Grade 3 and 5 cases of Grade 4). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The GroupA reported significantly fewer cases of postoperative fever (4) and analgesic treatment (3) compared to GroupB, which had 18 fever cases and 19 analgesic cases (P < 0.05).The GroupA did not experience any cases of septicemia or steinstrasse. Conversely, the GroupB had 5 cases of septicemia and 3 cases of steinstrasse, including 2 patients who underwent reoperation. Both groups also reported cases of ureteral mucosal rupture (5 in GroupA, 10 in GroupB), but these differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionCompared with 9.2 Fr f-URS combined with T-UAS, the use of 7.5 Fr f-URS with TFS-UAS in the treatment of kidney stones has higher lithotripsy efficiency and lower complication rate. This combination is safe and effective in the treatment of kidney stones.
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.