ArticleFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of the flexible negative-pressure ureteral sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- The Innovex RS Delivery Catheter as a Single-Platform Endoscopic System for Upper Urinary Tract Intervention: A Two-Case Report of Upper Ureteral Lithotripsy and Ablation of a Suspected Renal Pelvis Urothelial Lesion.Research and reports in urology · 2026Article
- Intrarenal pressure and stone fragment retrieval efficiency using foot-controlled irrigation in combination with a flexible, navigable Suction ureteral access sheath: an in vitro kidney model study.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
Background and objective: The treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones remains a significant challenge for urologists. Standard treatment protocols often favor Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy (Mini-PCNL). It has been supposed to be associated with a higher stone clearance rate and a lower incidence of ureteral stricture compared to Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS). Recently, FURS with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) has emerged as a promising alternative. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the FURS with FANS and Mini-PCNL for treating the impacted upper ureteral stones. Method: A retrospective study of 80 patients treated with FURS with FANS (Group A, Results: Both groups achieved comparable SFR (90.7% vs. 83.78%, Conclusion: FURS with FANS is a safe and effective alternative to Mini-PCNL for impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 10 mm, offering shorter recovery times and lower bleeding. However, its higher second-stage operation rate necessitates further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.