ArticleBJU international2026
Experimental stone clearance with in-scope suction and flexible and navigable suction access sheaths.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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.
- Fiber-to-stone distance and fragment size with holmium laser lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy alone for infected upper urinary tract stones: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of urology · 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
objectiveTo perform benchtop experiments using direct in-scope suction (DISS) ureteroscopes (Pusen Medical, Zhuhai, China; 3.6-Ch and 5.1-Ch working channels) and flexible and navigable suction (FANS) ureteric access sheaths (ClearPetra; Wellead, Guangzhou, China) to establish their ability to clear stones of different diameters.
methodsFor each experimental group, we conducted a series of experiments using mixes of progressively larger stone particles (<63, 63-125, 125-250, 250-500, 500-1000 and 1000-2000 μm) until suction through the respective lumen failed to achieve complete stone clearance; the first experiment's stone mix contained particles <63 μm; the second experiment's stone mix contained particles <63 μm + 63-125 μm; the third experiment's stone mix contained particles <63 μm + 63-125 μm + 125-250 μm, and so on, up to 2000 μm. The stone mixes were introduced in aliquots over the course of 30 min. In the first experimental group, either a 3.6-Ch or a 5.1-Ch working channel DISS ureteroscope (with a 200-μm laser) was used to aspirate stones. In the second experimental group, either an empty 5.1-Ch working channel DISS ureteroscope or an 11/13-Ch FANS with a 9.5-Ch ureteroscope (intermittently withdrawn) was used to aspirate stones.
resultsThe use of DISS through a 3.6-Ch working channel (with laser fibre) cleared stones up to 250 μm. DISS through a 5.1-Ch working channel cleared stones up to 500 μm with and without an indwelling laser fibre. FANS cleared all stone sizes tested (up to 2000 μm).
conclusionsDuring laser lithotripsy, DISS can aspirate 'dust' particles (<250 μm), which are known to most affect vision. However, particles >250 μm and >500 μm (with 3.6-Ch and 5.1-Ch working channels) may block the ureteroscope. The use of FANS, through successful clearance of larger fragments, may facilitate clearance of larger fragments.
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.