ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Evaluation of a fluoroscopy-free, ureteral access sheath-free, and stent-free approach to retrograde intrarenal surgery.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Letter to the editor: "Evaluation of a fluoroscopy-free, ureteral access sheath-free, and stent-free approach to retrograde intrarenal surgery".World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an approach attempting no fluoroscopy (F), ureteral sheaths (US), or stents (S) during retrograde intrarenal surgery (NoFUSS-RIRS) and to compare it to conventional RIRS (C-RIRS).
methodsWe prospectively collected data on the first 75 NoFUSS-RIRS procedures in patients with 5-20 mm renal stones and compared them to a cohort of 75 prior patients undergoing C-RIRS which involved fluoroscopy and stent placement. Baseline characteristics, safety outcomes (including Clavien-Dindo complications, ED visits, and readmissions), and CT-determined stone-free rates were compared. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of fluoroscopy and stent utilization.
resultsThe NoFUSS protocol was successfully implemented in over 90% of patients, with no cases requiring fluoroscopy or ureteral sheaths and only 9.3% requiring a stent. There were no significant differences in baseline or stone characteristics between groups. Median operating room time was significantly shorter in the NoFUSS-RIRS group (46 vs. 64 min, p < 0.001). There were no differences in complications (6.7% vs. 6.7%), ED visits (5.3% vs. 5.3%), or readmissions (2.7% vs. 2.7%) between NoFUSS-RIRS and C-RIRS groups, all p = 1. There were no significant differences in CT-based stone-free rates across all residual fragment (RF) categories including zero RF (NoFUSS-RIRS: 82.7% vs. C-RIRS: 72.7%, p = 0.199), RF < 3 mm, and RF ≥ 3 mm.
conclusionsA NoFUSS-RIRS protocol offers similar stone-free rates compared to C-RIRS with no increase in safety-related outcomes. Moreover, operative costs and radiation exposure to patients and operating room staff can be significantly reduced.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40622573What 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.