ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Relocation of big stone fragments with direct-in scope suction.
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 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.
- Real-world DISS practice combined with and without access sheath: insights from the global DISS dataset: a EAU endourology study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Size matters: not all scopes are created equal! A flow rate reality check for single-use flexible ureteroscopes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Direct in-scope suction (DISS) ureteroscopy: techniques, outcomes and future directions.BJU international · 2026Review
- Intrarenal pressure management using flexible ureteroscope with direct in-scope suction in combination with different size ureteral access sheaths: an experimental ex-vivo study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Measurement and comparison of intrarenal pressures during retrograde intrarenal surgery using novel flexible ureteroscopes with integrated direct in-scope suction: An experimentalCentral European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Laser fibers and baskets. How do they affect suction and intrarenal pressures using the novel single-use flexible direct in-scope suction ureteroscopes?Central European 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effectiveness of DISS feature of novel 7.5Fr and 9.2Fr single-use flexible digital ureteroscopes to relocate and evacuate stone fragments (2-5 mm in diameter) without any accessory instruments.
methodsAn ex-vivo experimental study on porcine kidney and ureter was performed. Natural calcium oxalate dihydrate stone fragments sized 2-5 mm placed in the upper, middle and lower calyces were used. For each stone in each location 5 attempts were performed. The attempt was defined as successful if stone evacuation was reported while withdrawing the scope through the 12/14Fr UAS. The time collapsing the collecting system was also reported.
resultsThe time needed to collapse the porcine pelvi-calyceal system (PCS) was 4-5 s for 9.2Fr and 5-6 s for 7.5Fr scope. Evacuation of 2 mm stone fragments occurred in all trials both with 9.2Fr and 7.5Fr scopes. In case of 3 mm stone, evacuation of stone fragments was observed in 3 out of 5 and 1 out of 5 attempts in upper calyx, 5 out of 5 and 3 out of 5 in the middle calyx and 2 out of 5 and 0 out 5 in lower calyx using 7.5Fr and 9.2Fr scope, respectively.
conclusionThe DISS feature of the novel 7.5Fr and 9.2Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope can be potentially used not only to aspirate dust but also to relocate and evacuate larger stone fragments up to 4 mm in diameter using only suction. The speed of collapse of the PCS seems to be one of the main predictors of success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40180630What 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.