Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40796988›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025

Efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction access sheaths versus traditional access sheath in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yijie Xie, He Gong, Qi Zheng, Meixuan Ding, Zhiyuan Shi, Bing Guan, Haichao Huang, Jiaxin Zheng, Bo Duan, Huiqiang Wang and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors.

Yijie Xie *The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, China.
He Gong *The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Qi Zheng *The School of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, 350122, China.
Meixuan Ding *The School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, China.
Zhiyuan ShiThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Bing GuanThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Haichao HuangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Jiaxin ZhengThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Bo DuanThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Huiqiang WangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China.
Tao WangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China. taowang@xmu.edu.cn.
Peide BaiThe School of Clinical Medicine, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, China. baipeide@126.com.
Bin ChenThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, 361003, China. chenbin5557@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China General Program 82370764Xiamen Medical and Health Guidance Project 3502Z20214ZD1007Xiamen Medical and Health Guidance Project 3502Z20224ZD1008Xiamen Medical and Health Guidance Project 3502Z20244ZD1017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction access sheath (FANS) and traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) combined with flexible ureteroscope in treating upper urinary tract calculi.

methodA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted by searching databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Results were filtered using pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria as described, and meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software.

resultsA total of 10 literatures were included, involving 2105 patients. The meta-analysis results demonstrated that compared with the T-UAS group, the FANS group had a higher stone free rate (SFR) (the immediate postoperative SFR was 79.1% vs 56.5%, OR = 2.87, 95% CI: 2.24-3.66, P < 0.05; the SFR at 1 month after surgery was 92.0% vs 79.9%, OR = 2.98, 95% CI: 2.27-3.91, P < 0.05); a lower total complication rate (7.2% vs 19.0%, OR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.27-0.49, P < 0.05); less fever (3.3% vs 10.4%, OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.46, P < 0.05); a lower incidence of steinstrasse (0.0% vs 2.6%, OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.90, P < 0.05); there was no significant difference in the incidence of hematuria (3.9% vs 7.0%, OR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.22-1.42, P > 0.05), ureteral mucosal injury (2.0% vs 3.8%, OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.26-1.57, P > 0.05) and operation time (MD =- 1.69, 95% CI:- 2.62-5.99, P > 0.05).

conclusionCompared with the T-UAS combined with flexible ureteroscopy, the FANS has a higher SFR. However, the two have comparable incidences of some short-term complications, and there is a lack of comparison of long-term postoperative complications. Although the total complication rate of the bendable sheath is currently lower, further exploration is still needed.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyUreteral CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyEquipment DesignHumansPostoperative ComplicationsSuctionTreatment OutcomeCalculiFANSFlexible ureteroscopeT-UASUreteral access sheath

Identifiers

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.