Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40119185›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Does intraoperative surgeon reported stone free status (IO-SFS) correlate with CT based post operative stone free status (PO-SFS) in flexible ureteroscopy using flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) in real-world practice? A prospective global FANS collaborative study group initiative with the section of EAU endourology.

Vineet Gauhar, Olivier Traxer, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Daniele Castellani, Guohua Zeng, Khi Yung Fong, Zhu Wei, Deepak Reddy Ragoori, Mohamed Elshazly, Kremena Petkova and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The future of endourology is now.World journal of urology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Olivier TraxerDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne University, Tenon Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Steffi Kar Kei YuenSH Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Daniele CastellaniUrology Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Guohua ZengDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 11 Hospital Dr, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Zhu WeiDepartment of Urology and Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Deepak Reddy RagooriAsian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Urology, 6-3-562/A, Errum Manzil, Hyperabad, 500082, Telangana, India.
Mohamed ElshazlyFaculty of Medicine Urology Department, Menoufia university, Shibin el Kom, Egypt.
Kremena PetkovaDepartment of Urology and Nephrology, Military Medical Academy, 3, Georgi Sofiiski blvd., Sofia, 1606, Bulgaria.
Wissam KamalDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Ministry of the National Guard-Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Mehmet Ilker GokceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Mohamed Amine LakmichiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Mohammed the VIth of Marrakesh, Marrakesh, Morocco.
Chaeeun LeeYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 11 Hospital Dr, Singapore, 169610, Singapore.
Albert El HajjDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Marek ZawadzkiUrology Unit, St. Anna Hospital, Piaseczno, Poland.
Luis RicoDepartment of Urology, Hospital Aleman, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Pablo ContrerasDepartment of Urology, Hospital Aleman, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Chu Ann ChaiUrology Unit, Department of Surgery, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Petrisor GeavleteSaint John Emergency Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Medical School, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jia-Lun KwokDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, 11 Jalan Tan Tock Seng, Singapore, 308433, Singapore.
Bhaskar Kumar SomaniUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust GB, Southampton, UK.
Ee Jean LimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Academia Level 5, 20 College Rd, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. eejeanlim@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFlexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) has been proven to improve stone-free rate (SFR) and many studies report high intraoperative 100% stone-free status (IO-SFS) and postoperative 100% stone-free status (PO-SFS). The reliability of IO-SFS vis-à-vis image-proven PO-SFS needs to be evaluated as it has implications on perioperative management.

methodsOur prospective, multicenter study enrolled 704 adult patients from 21 centers who underwent FURS with FANS between August 2023 and October 2024. IO-SFS was categorized into three groups: (1) 100% SFR (no dust or fragments), (2) only dust remaining, and (3) both dust and fragments remaining. PO-SFS was assessed via 2 mm non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) at 30 days and categorized into four grades: Grade A (100% stone-free), Grade B (single ≤ 2 mm residual fragment), Grade C (single 2.1-4 mm), and Grade D (multiple or any > 4 mm). Primary outcome was correlation between intraoperative and postoperative 100% SFS. Secondary outcomes included perioperative complications, reintervention rates, and predictors of residual fragments and perioperative complications.

resultsIO-SFS reported 100% SFR in 395 cases. Postoperative NCCT confirmed a significantly higher SFS (Grade A + B) in this group (99%) compared to 95.8% in the dust only group and 61.1% in the dust and fragments group (p < 0.001). Positive predictive value (PPV) of intraoperative 100% SFR was 99% with post-op NCCT, while negative predictive value (NPV) was only 12.3%. Secondary outcome analysis showed higher stone volumes, lower pole locations, and use of high-power holmium lasers were associated with increased 2-4 mm residual fragments (OR 6.53, p = 0.047). In the 100% SFR group, the use of 12/14 Fr UAS and disposable scopes was significantly higher, with a preferred strategy combining fragmentation, dusting, and aspiration. No cases of sepsis or significant postoperative bleeding were reported due to the use of FANS, with fewer patients requiring post-operative stenting.

conclusionThis study provides robust evidence that surgeon-reported 100% IO-SFS is highly predictive of NCCT-proven postoperative stone-free outcomes, with a PPV of 99%. However, intraoperative detection of residual fragments is less reliable in predicting persistent stone burden, as only 40% of these patients eventually achieved SFS on NCCT. Standardized imaging protocols remain necessary to optimize postoperative management and patient counseling, while avoid unnecessary re-intervention.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiTomography, X-Ray ComputedUreteral CalculiUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleHumansIntraoperative CareMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSuctionUreteroscopesFANSIntraoperative evaluationKidney calculiSFRUreteroscopy

Identifiers

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.