ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Sand clearance vs. flowrate during ureteroscopy: studies in an in-vitro transparent kidney model.
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 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.
- Endoscopic visual cues of intrarenal pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo porcine studies.BJU international · 2026Article
- Intrarenal pressure response to suction during ureteroscopy with a flexible and navigable suction sheath: in vivo porcine studies.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
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
purposeSuction has recently been introduced into the ureteroscopic armamentarium to improve stone fragment and debris clearance. However, the benefits of suction appear to be limited by current irrigation systems. This study aimed to measure the time to clear sand ureteroscopically from a transparent silicone kidney-ureter model at different flowrates and compare with results with conventional pressurized irrigation and intermittent suction.
methodsA LithoVue™ Elite ureteroscope was inserted through a Clear Petra 11/13 Fr 46 cm or 12/14 Fr 50 cm FANS device into a transparent silicone kidney model. Irrigation was delivered from a peristaltic pump at rates of 18-90 ml/min with pump assisted outflow or from a pressurized source with suction assisted outflow. Intrarenal pressure (IRP) was maintained between 30-40 cmH
resultsSand was cleared more quickly from the kidney model as flowrate increased up to ~ 70-80 ml/min. Use of continuous flowrate was more efficient at clearing sand than variable flowrate produced by bursts of intermittent suction.
conclusionsFlowrate is a primary variable affecting efficiency of sand clearance in in vitro studies. Current clinical methods that utilize intermittent suction during ureteroscopy are likely less efficient than configurations that provide continuous flowrates. Incorporation of IRP feedback into irrigation systems may facilitate high flowrate while maintaining stable low IRP, thereby enhancing efficiency and safety of ureteroscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40397063What 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.