Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40159569›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Direct-in-scope suction with a 5.1Fr large working channel ureteroscope: what stone dust size for effective evacuation during laser lithotripsy? An in vitro analysis by PEARLS and section of EAU Endourology.

Ming Chun Chan, Vineet Gauhar, Soon Hock Koh, Frédéric Panthier, Eugenio Ventimiglia, Vincent De Coninck, Stefano Moretto, Aideen Madden, Anil Shrestha, Sung Yung Cho and 7 more

Abstract read
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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The future of endourology is now.World journal of urology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors.

Ming Chun ChanDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9705-5478
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3740-7141
Soon Hock KohDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6095-8681
Frédéric PanthierProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3055-2984
Eugenio VentimigliaProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3654-1629
Vincent De ConinckProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055
Stefano MorettoSorbonne University, GRC N°20 LITHIASE RENALE, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, 75020, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3418-5202
Aideen MaddenEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9068-5426
Anil ShresthaProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2249-5345
Sung Yung ChoEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9761-5789
Esteban EmilianiEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4488-0022
Steffi Kar Kei YuenEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9956-1558
Thomas R W HerrmannEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4493-1301
Bhaskar SomaniEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478
Olivier TraxerProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803
Etienne Xavier KellerProgressive Endourological Association for Research and Leading Solutions (PEARLS), Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609
Jia-Lun KwokDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. drjialun.kwok@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-6225

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA novel larger 5.1Fr working channel flexible ureteroscope for Direct-In-Scope Suction (DISS) has recently been introduced. However, the optimal stone dust size for successful evacuation without working channel blockage is currently unknown.

methodsIn vitro assessment of the PU400A 9.2Fr ureteroscope (Zhuhai Pusen Medical Technology Co., Ltd, China) was performed with BegoStone particle sizes ≤ 2000 μm (size range 1000-2000 μm), ≤ 1000 μm (500-1000 μm), ≤ 500 μm (250-500 μm), ≤ 250 μm (125-250 μm) and ≤ 125 μm (63-125 μm), in a kidney calyx model. This was conducted with an empty working channel, and with occupancy by 150 μm Olympus, 200 μm Quanta, 270 μm Dornier laser fibers. Primary outcome was complete suction-evacuation without working channel blockage. Secondary outcome was evacuation speed for particle sizes that did not have blockage.

resultsA stone particle size upper limit of 250 μm was found to achieve complete suction-evacuation without blockage, across all working channel occupancy situations. For stone particle size of range 125-250 μm, evacuation speeds were 35, 26, 13, 11 mm

conclusionThe 5.1Fr working channel DISS ureteroscope allows a stone particle size limit of 250 μm to be suction-evacuated without blockage, even with laser fiber occupancy. With a laser fiber, a smaller 150 μm fiber size allows better particle evacuation speeds. Urologists should therefore aim for a dust particle size of ≤ 250 μm in routine DISS with the 5.1Fr working channel ureteroscope, for effective intraoperative stone evacuation.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsy, LaserUreteroscopesUreteroscopyEquipment DesignHumansIn Vitro TechniquesParticle SizeSuctionDirect-in-scope suctionDust sizeFlexible ureteroscopyLaser fiberStone fragmentsWorking channel

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.