ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Intrarenal pressure management using flexible ureteroscope with direct in-scope suction in combination with different size ureteral access sheaths: an experimental ex-vivo study.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with and without direct in-scope suction: a retrospective analysis.Journal of medicine and life · 2026Article
- The impact of preoperative CT-based 3D visualization model on ureteric access sheath placement failure without pre-stenting.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of direct in-scope suction (DISS) on intrarenal pressure (IRP) using two different-sized flexible ureteroscopes (7.5Fr and 9.2Fr) in combination with various sized ureteral access sheaths (UAS). MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this ex-vivo experimental study using a porcine kidney model, pressure measurements were conducted using two venous catheters placed in the upper and lower calyces. We tested 7.5Fr (3.6Fr working channel) and 9.2Fr (5.1Fr working channel) flexible ureteroscopes with DISS systems with 9.5/11.5Fr, 11/13Fr, and 12/14Fr UASs. Measurements were taken at irrigation pressures of 40-100 mmHg, evaluating the effects of suction modes (none vs active).
resultsThe 9.2Fr scope generated higher baseline pressures (maximum 23 mmHg) compared to the 7.5Fr scope (maximum 7 mmHg) at 100 mmHg irrigation. One second of active achieved significant pressure reduction from 20-23mmHG to 3 mmHg for 9.2Fr DISS scope with 100 mmHg pressure setting and to 0 mmHg in all other settings with both scopes. The 9.2Fr scope demonstrated faster pressure recovery (8-14 s) compared to the 7.5Fr scope (10-32 s).
conclusionsHigher intrarenal pressures can be expected with the 9.2Fr scope compared to the 7.5Fr scope, regardless of irrigation power and UAS size. Rapid and significant reduction of pressure occurs only after 1 s of suction activation. This effect is more pronounced with the 9.2Fr ureteroscope that is supplied with a wider working channel measuring 5.1Fr. The 9.2Fr scope requires shorter time to regain initial pressure compared to the 7.5Fr scope (3.6Fr working channel).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40522521What 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.