ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Multicenter outcome analysis of different sheath sizes for Flexible and Navigable Suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) ureteroscopy: an EAU Endourology collaboration with the global FANS study group.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07568990 (The Impact of Two Different Ureteral Access Sheaths on Success and Complications in Endoscopic Kidney Stone Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 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.
The Impact of Two Different Ureteral Access Sheaths on Success and Complications in Endoscopic Kidney Stone Surgery
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The influence of pre-stenting and drugs on the outcomes of ureteroscopy for kidney and ureteral stone disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis by the EAU Section of Endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction access sheaths versus traditional access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of 6.3-Fr versus 8.6-Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes for pediatric upper urinary tract stones ≤ 2 cm: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Stone extraction during flexible ureterorenoscopy with or without the hydrogel method: a randomized, multicenter safety and feasibility study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Paradigm shifts in fluid management using suction irrigation pressure autoregulating systems in modern flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: an evidence-based narrative from EAU Endourology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- [Effect of leg-split-free lateral decubitus position and lithotomy position on renal pelvic pressure and clinical outcomes during flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026Article
- Comparison of T-tilt, Trendelenburg, and dorsal lithotomy positions in retrograde intrarenal surgery: surgical, inflammatory, and efficiency outcomes.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Outpatient versus inpatient flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: A multicenter comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from the flexible and navigable access sheath collaborative study group.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Parameter mapping for the use of flexible and navigable suction sheath: an in vitro study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopy for proximal impacted ureter stones: a retrospective case series.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Pressure and sheath settings in a flexible suction ureteral access sheath: in-vitro assessment for retrograde intrarenal surgery.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Flexible and navigable suction access sheaths: what size stone particles can be cleared?BJU international · 2026Article
- Benchtop comparison of seven ureteroscopes: evaluating physical properties and deflection with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths.BJU international · 2026Article
- Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath's impact on ureteroscope deflection.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy alone for infected upper urinary tract stones: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stone Disease in Elderly Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- How do we choose the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): an EAU endourology and AUSET prospective multicenter analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparison of tip-flexible negative pressure suction sheath and conventional sheath in pediatric renal calculi RIRS: the Hotan experience.Urolithiasis · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) is a potential game changer in flexible ureteroscopy (FURS). The influence of sheath size on outcomes needs research. The primary aim was to analyze 30-day single stage stone free status (SFS), zero fragment rate (ZFR) and complications when using 10/12Fr sheaths vis a vis other sheath sizes. The global FANS research group published the 30-day outcomes in patients who underwent FANS and reasoned this can be a potential game changer. We included 295 patients from this anonymized dataset with division into two groups: Group 1 (Smaller sheath) - 10/12Fr FANS, and Group 2 (Larger sheath) - 11/13Fr or 12/14Fr sheaths. Stone volume was similar between both groups (median 1320 mm
Indexed as
Identifiers
39545972What 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.