ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Flexible suction ureteral access sheaths vs. sheathless RIRS for renal and proximal ureteral stones: a comparative study.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Power is not performance: Analysis of laser-use metrics from a randomised clinical trial comparing low- and high-power ureteroscopic lithotripsy.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy alone for infected upper urinary tract stones: a retrospective cohort 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS)-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) vs. sheathless techniques in treating renal/proximal ureteral stones, with a focus on immediate and short-term stone clearance rates, stenting duration, and complications.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 115 patients (FANS group: 73; control group: 42) with comparable mean stone diameters (FANS: 14.1 ± 5.4 mm vs. control: 12.2 ± 4.9 mm, P = 0.06). Outcomes assessed included immediate (postoperative day 1) and 1-month stone-free rates (SFRs), operative time, ureteral stenting duration, and complications.
resultsThe FANS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediate SFR (84.9% vs. 69.0%, P < 0.05), while the 1-month SFRs were comparable (91.8% vs. 90.5%). Despite longer operative times (51 vs. 40 min, P < 0.05), the FANS group had a shorter stenting duration (12 vs. 21 days, P < 0.05). Complication rates were similar (FANS: 11.0% vs. control: 11.9%), with no ureteral injuries in either group.
conclusionsFANS-assisted RIRS demonstrated superior immediate stone clearance compared to sheathless RIRS, which may be particularly advantageous for managing complex or infected stones, where complete initial clearance is clinically paramount. In addition, the significantly shorter stenting duration with FANS offers distinct benefits for stent-intolerant patients. While both techniques achieved similar 1-month stone-free rates, these advantages position FANS as a valuable option for selected patients based on stone characteristics and individual clinical priorities. Further studies should explore long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
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.