ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Which sucks more? Comparison of two novel direct-in-scope suction ureteroscopes to a conventional ureteroscope.
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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Suction-assisted ureteroscopy compared with traditional ureteroscopy for renal stones ≤ 2 cm: a systematic review, Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Stone extraction during flexible ureterorenoscopy with or without the hydrogel method: a randomized, multicenter safety and feasibility study.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Thermal safety during retrograde intrarenal surgery and laser lithotripsy. Changes of intrarenal temperature while using direct-in-scope-suction : an in-vitro study by young academic urologists and EAU endourology sections.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Research progress on treating urinary system stones using ureteroscopy combined With a negative-pressure suction sheath.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNovel Direct-In-Scope-Suction ureteroscopes (DISS-U) have recently been introduced to facilitate removal of small stone fragments. The purpose of this study was to compare two novel DISS-U to a conventional ureteroscope to determine efficiency for suctioning fluid and stone dust at different deflection angles.
methodsThree disposable ureteroscopes were evaluated, including two DISS-U with 5.1-Fr and a 3.6-Fr channels, and were compared to a conventional ureteroscope with 3.6-Fr channel. For DISS-U trials, a conventional suction system was set at maximal settings and tested at deflection of 0, 90, and 140°, to simulate upper, interpolar, and lower pole kidney stone evacuation under 3 conditions (empty channel, 2.2-Fr basket, and 0.038 guidewire). For the conventional ureteroscope, suctioning was performed manually using a 60-mL Luer lock syringe. Five trials were performed to measure the time in seconds to remove 1 gram of CaOx density BegoStones (0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm) and 50-mL of saline.
resultsThe 5.1-Fr DISS-U was the only scope that evacuated 0.5 mm stone fragments and evacuated them significantly faster from the upper and interpole compared to the lower pole (111.0 ± 27.7, 128.0 ± 29.1, and 377.7 ± 63.4 s at 0, 90, and 140°, respectively; p < 0.002). The 5.1-Fr DISS-U evacuated 1 g of dust faster than the 3.6 DISS-U and conventional ureteroscope at all angles (p < 0.007). The 5.1-Fr DISS-U and the 3.6-Fr DISS-U required less suction time for 50 mL of saline compared to the conventional ureteroscope at all angles (p < 0.001 for all). Using a 2.2-Fr basket increased suction time by 66.0% (p < 0.001) for the 3.6-Fr DISS-U and by 44% (p < 0.001) for the 5.1-Fr DISS-U, while the 0.038 guidewire increased suction time by 96% and 111%, respectively (p < 0.001). No ureteroscope was able to suction 1 mm stone fragments without clogging.
conclusionsThe DISS ureteroscopes significantly outperformed the conventional ureteroscope in both suction speed and dust evacuation efficiency. The 5.1-Fr DISS-U demonstrated superior performance and is able to evacuate stone particles up to 0.5 mm.
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.