ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Efficacy and Safety of Tip-Flexible Suctioning Ureteral Access in Renal Stone Treatment.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- In vitro performance of the Vortex Intelligent Stone Optimized Removal (VISOR) system versus the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) on stone clearance efficiency and intrarenal pressure control.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
- Research Progress in Minimally Invasive Surgical Treatment for Upper Urinary Tract Stones: A Review.Research and reports in urology · 2026Review
- Research progress on treating urinary system stones using ureteroscopy combined With a negative-pressure suction sheath.Frontiers in surgery · 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
BACKGROUND We compared the efficacy and safety of a novel flexible-tip suctioning ureteral access sheath (NFTS-UAS) with flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treating unilateral renal calculi (2-3.5 cm). MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study included 337 patients (167 NFTS-UAS, 170 PCNL) treated at Huzhou Normal College's First Affiliated Hospital (March 2021-January 2024). Group 1 underwent FURS with NFTS-UAS, utilizing a flexible-tip sheath connected to a suction device for improved fragment clearance. Group 2 underwent standard PCNL. Outcomes included duration of surgery, stone-free rate (SFR), hospital stay, antibiotic use, and complications. RESULTS The NFTS-UAS group had shorter surgery times (80.02±29.44 vs 98.95±28.82 minutes; P<0.05) and hospital stays (45.62±30.59 vs 173.0±75.46 hours; P<0.05). Preoperative antibiotic use and postoperative infectious complications (eg, elevated neutrophils) were lower in the NFTS-UAS group. While NFTS-UAS had a lower day 1 SFR (68.26% vs 83.53%; P<0.05), SFRs had equalized by day 30 (85.0% vs 89.0%; P=0.21). No intraoperative complications occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS NFTS-UAS with FURS is a viable alternative to PCNL for 2-3.5 cm renal stones, offering comparable 30-day SFRs, faster recovery, and reduced hospitalization. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate long-term outcomes.
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.