ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Assessment of a novel bendable-tip ureteral access sheath with integrated suction: an in vitro study.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Authors' reply to: commentary on "assessment of a novel bendable-tip ureteral access sheath with integrated suction: an in vitro study".Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Commentary on "assessment of a novel bendable-tip ureteral access sheath with integrated suction: an in vitro study".Urolithiasis · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical management of urinary stones has significantly evolved with the advent of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. For lower pole stones larger than 1 cm, the choice between fURS and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy remains debated. fURS with ureteric access sheaths (UAS) is a widely utilized technique, but fragment clearance is challenging in unfavorable anatomical conditions and/or lower pole stones. This study compares a novel flexible suction UAS (FANS) with a standard UAS in an in vitro model of lower pole stones. An in vitro experiment was conducted using an anatomical model of the urinary tract with artificial stones simulating complex 1-cm lower pole stones. Fourteen procedures were performed using either a 12/14 Fr diameter standard UAS or FANS. Every experiment was performed by a single surgeon using a 8.4 Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope and holmium:YAG laser set at 0.5 J, 25 Hz, and short pulse with a 272 μm fiber. Operative times, stone clearance rates, lasering times, were recorded and the residual stone masses (> 2 mm) was quantified. Complete stone clearance was achieved in 5 out of 7 procedures using FANS while no complete stone clearance was achieved using the standard UAS. The median laser time [27:33 (26:06-28:24) vs 24:02 (21:25-25:04) mm:ss, p = 0.017] and total energy output energy [20663 (19,575-21,325) vs 18,270 (16,069-18,931) J, p = 0.017] were significantly lower in the FANS group (p = 0.017), and the operative time was comparable. This in vitro experiment suggests that fURS with novel FANS may improve stone clearance and improve laser efficiency when compared to the standard UAS, without increasing operative times. Further clinical trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40314797What 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.