SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2025
Comparison of suction technique and non-suction technique in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Research progress on treating urinary system stones using ureteroscopy combined With a negative-pressure suction sheath.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones comparing non suction conventional UAS vs flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths in a multicenter real-world experience. Is it finally time to bury the no suction ureteral access sheath? An EAU endourology analysis.World journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of retrograde intrarenal stone surgery (RIRS) using the vacuum suction technique for the treatment of upper urinary calculi.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Sino Med, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and Cochrane. We included studies comparing vacuum suction RIRS with non-vacuum RIRS. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we performed a meta-analysis of the selected studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control studies, and retrospective studies evaluating the efficacy of these techniques. Key outcomes analyzed included operative time, hospitalization duration, stone-free rates, and complication rates. Statistical analyses were conducted using mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsSixteen studies (6 RCTs, 1 case-control study, and 9 retrospective studies) involving a total of 2029 patients were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the vacuum suction technique significantly reduced operative time (MD = - 14.45 min, 95% CI [- 18.45; - 10.44], P < 0.00001) and hospital stay (MD = - 0.54 days, 95% CI [- 0.80; - 0.28], P < 0.00001). In addition, patients in the vacuum suction group had a higher stone-free rate (OR = 3.57, 95% CI [2.57; 4.95], P < 0.00001) and lower complication rates, particularly in reducing postoperative fever.
conclusionThe application of the vacuum suction technique in RIRS significantly improves clinical outcomes by reducing operative time and hospitalization duration, enhancing stone-free rates, and lowering postoperative complication rates. This technique demonstrates a clear clinical advantage over non-vacuum RIRS and should be considered a preferred option for the management of upper urinary tract 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.