Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40050461›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025

Is flexible navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) safer and more efficient than conventional sheaths? Italian multicentric experience.

Loris Cacciatore, Antonio Minore, Lilla Bonanno, Pierangelo Contessa, Francesco Esperto, Antonio Rosario Iannello, Rocco Papalia

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Loris CacciatoreDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy. loris.cacciatore@unicampus.it.
Antonio MinoreDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Lilla BonannoDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Centro Neurolesi, Piemonte Hospital, Bonino Pulejo, Messina, Italy.
Pierangelo ContessaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Centro Neurolesi, Piemonte Hospital, Bonino Pulejo, Messina, Italy.
Francesco EspertoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Antonio Rosario IannelloDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Centro Neurolesi, Piemonte Hospital, Bonino Pulejo, Messina, Italy.
Rocco PapaliaDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) with continuous flow lithotripsy may improve stone-free rates (SFR) in ureterorenolithotripsy procedures, reducing operative time and the need for fragment extraction. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of FANS versus conventional sheaths in patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal stones.

methodsFrom January to September 2024, patients undergoing RIRS with high-power pulsed lasers (60 W Ho:YAG or 100 W pTm:YAG) were randomized to receive either a conventional sheath (Group 1) or FANS (Group 2). Data on baseline characteristics, operative details, and complications were collected. SFR, defined as the absence of fragments > 3 mm, was assessed with non-contrast CT scans one-month post-surgery. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

resultsA total of 132 patients were enrolled (70 with conventional sheath, 62 with FANS). The FANS group had shorter operative times (55.25 vs. 61.36 min, p = 0.028), while laser time was similar between groups. Postoperative complications were lower in the FANS group. At one month, the FANS group had a higher SFR (95% vs. 67%, p < 0.005) and fewer re-interventions (p = 0.02).

conclusionsFANS significantly improves SFR without increasing postoperative complications postoperative complications or negatively affecting recovery, offering a promising alternative to conventional sheaths in ureterorenolithotripsy procedures. FANS improves kidney stone surgery outcomes, providing better stone removal, fewer complications, and faster recovery compared to the standard tool.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyUreteroscopyAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansItalyLithotripsy, LaserMaleMiddle AgedSuctionTreatment OutcomeUreterFANSFlexible aspiration sheathFlexible SheathRIRSUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID40050461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.