Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40542192›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Clinical efficacy analysis of two different types of ureteral access sheaths in RIRS for the treatment of 2-4 cm renal stones.

Jiansheng Xiao, Hua Chen, Jiaqi Ge, Jin Kuang, Xin Huang, Qiliang Zhai, Difu Fan, Leming Song, Tairong Liu

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jiansheng Xiao *Department of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Hua Chen *Department of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Jiaqi GeDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Jin KuangDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Xin HuangDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Qiliang ZhaiDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Difu FanDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Leming SongDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China.
Tairong LiuDepartment of Urology, Jiangxi Medical College, Ganzhou People's Hospital, Nanchang University, No. 16 Meiguan Avenue, Zhanggong District, Ganzhou, Jiangxi, China. tttrong@126.com.

Funding

This study was funded by the Key Research and Development Project of Ganzhou GZ2024YLJ068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) and intelligent pressure-controlled ureteral access sheath (IPC-UAS) in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of 2-4 cm renal stones.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from patients who underwent RIRS at the Department of Urology, Ganzhou People's Hospital, between October 2022 and December 2024. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of ureteral access sheath used during surgery. Clinical outcomes were compared between groups, including stone-free rate (SFR) on postoperative day 1 and month 1 follow-up, complication rate, operative time, average length of hospital stay, and postoperative pain scores.

resultsThe FV-UAS group achieved significantly higher SFR compared to the IPC-UAS group, with rates of 84.02% on postoperative day 1 and 88.66% at month 1, versus 74.87% and 80.21%, respectively(P < 0.05). However, the FV-UAS group also exhibited a higher complication rate (15.98%) than the IPC-UAS group (9.44%) (P = 0.043). In cases involving lower pole stones, the use of a stone retrieval basket was notably lower in the FV-UAS group (1.34%) compared to the IPC-UAS group (5.34%) (P = 0.042). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of stone composition, operative time, hospital stay duration, or intraoperative hemoglobin loss (P > 0.05).

conclusionBoth FV-UAS and IPC-UAS are effective and safe for managing large renal stones in RIRS. FV-UAS can achieve a higher SFR, while IPC-UAS demonstrates a lower rate of complications.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiUreteroscopyAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreterFlexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheathIntelligent pressure-controlled ureteral access sheathRenal stonesRetrograde intrarenal surgery

Identifiers

PMID40542192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.