ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
RIRS with FV-UAS vs. ESWL for the management of 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients: a prospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal calculi measuring one to two centimeters.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 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
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) combined with flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi (LPC) in obese patients. Patients and methods: This prospective, randomized study included 149 obese patients with 1-2 cm LPC. Patients were allocated into two groups: 76 patients underwent RIRS with FV-UAS, and 73 patients received ESWL. The parameters assessed included stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, operative time, and pain intensity measured by the visual analog scale (VAS). Stone-free status was defined as the absence of stones on computed tomography or residual fragments smaller than 4 mm at 4 weeks post-procedure. Results: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. The SFR was significantly higher in the RIRS group, reaching 86.8%, compared to 63.0% in the ESWL group ( Conclusion: RIRS with FV-UAS demonstrated superior efficacy, evidenced by a higher SFR and reduced retreatment rates compared to ESWL, despite a longer operative duration. Both treatment modalities showed comparable safety profiles. RIRS with FV-UAS emerges as a viable, effective, and reproducible intervention for managing 1-2 cm LPC in obese patients, providing significant clinical advantages.
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.