ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Is the ablation stone efficacy and efficiency better with a flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath?
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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Suction-assisted ureteroscopy compared with traditional ureteroscopy for renal stones ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Is the direct in-scope suction (DISS) the solution for the non-prestenting and sheathless flexible ureteroscopy?International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteric Access Sheath in RIRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Is ambulatory flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy safe and feasible? evidence from a propensity score-matched cohort.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Magneto Ho:YAG laser versus Thulium Fiber Laser for laser lithotripsy during flexible ureteroscopy with a flexible and navigable ureteral access sheath.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Article
- Efficacy of 1 mSv ultra-low-dose CT with automated volume analyzer software for detecting residual tiny fragments and dust particles after laser lithotripsy: an ex vivo Phantom study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Use of novel tip-bendable suction ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones can reduce the risk of postoperative sepsis.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Thulium Fiber Laser versus Vapor Tunnel HO:YAG laser in retrograde intrarenal surgery: which one has better laser ablation performance?World journal of urology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the ablation efficacy and efficiency of flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath (FANS) and conventional ureteral access sheath (c-UAS) in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study of 96 patients who underwent RIRS using thulium fiber laser was performed. We divided the patients into Group 1: FANS and Group 2: c-UAS. We assessed the lithotripsy efficiency (mm
resultsBoth groups presented comparable stone volume (mm
conclusionCompared to c-UAS, RIRS with FANS was associated with decreased total operative time and laser energy consumption and presented a significantly higher ablation efficacy and efficiency. Additionally, SFR was significantly higher in the FANS group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40202546What 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.