ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Comparison of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath with conventional ureteral access sheath for pediatric retrograde intrarenal surgery: a single-center propensity-matched analysis.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Vacuum-assisted versus conventional percutaneous sheaths in pediatric supine mini-PCNL: a comparative analysis.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Feasibility of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath in pediatric ureteroscopy: A systematic review from the European Association of Urology Section of Endourology.Asian journal of urology · 2026Review
- The global flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) survey on utility, practices and future needs in flexible ureteroscopy: a EAU Endourology, PEARLS and IAU collaboration.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of tip-flexible negative pressure suction sheath and conventional sheath in pediatric renal calculi RIRS: the Hotan experience.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS-UAS) has increasingly been recognized as a potential game changer for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). While this innovative technology has demonstrated promising results in adult populations, there is a notable lack of evidence regarding its application in pediatric cases, particularly in comparison to conventional ureteral access sheaths (CUAS). This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of pediatric kidney stone cases treated with RIRS using FANS-UAS and CUAS. We conducted a retrospective matched pair analysis, matching patients based on preoperative age, stone location, and stone size. After matching, data from 46 patients (23 in each group) were analyzed. The groups were comparable in terms of age, hydronephrosis degree, location and size of the stone (p = 0.543, p = 0.807, p = 0.840, and p = 0.577, respectively). Operation times were shorter in the FANS-UAS group (CUAS: 67.9 ± 21.0 min, FANS-UAS: 50.4 ± 21.1 min, p = 0.007). The initial stone-free rate (SFR) was 65.2% in the CUAS group and 91.3% in the FANS-UAS group, with a statistically significant difference (p = 0.032). However, no significant difference was found regarding the final SFR (p = 0.295). The number and duration of DJ-stents, were significantly higher in the CUAS group (p = 0.006 for both). The FANS-UAS group had a significantly fewer anesthesia sessions (p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in complication rates (p = 0.303). Our findings suggest that FANS-UAS offers significant advantages over CUAS in pediatric RIRS, including higher initial success rates, shorter operation times, reduced anesthesia requirements, and fewer treatment sessions, with comparable safety profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738883What 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.