ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy with and without ureteral access sheaths for the treatment of renal calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Central European 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.
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
Introduction: The use of ureteral access sheaths (UASs) is an issue of contention among urologists, with their efficacy unclear in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess RIRS with laser lithotripsy for the treatment of urolithiasis with and without the use of UASs. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in July 2023 using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottowa scale and Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool. The primary outcome measures were stone-free rate (SFR), and post-operative complications. Secondary outcomes were operative time (OT), hospital length of stay (LOS) and ureteral injury rate. Effect sizes were calculated by pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In total, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria. There were 3,123 participants who had RIRS with a UAS and 1,478 without. Pooled analysis revealed no significant difference between groups in SFR (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.07), complication rate (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.00-1.73), ureteral injuries (RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.77-1.65) or LOS (MD = -0.01, 95% CI: from -0.08 to 0.11). OT was significantly longer in the UAS group (MD = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.01-0.7). Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that the use of UASs during RIRS does not improve post-operative outcomes and is associated with a longer OT. While there are still times where the use of UASs may be beneficial, their routine use for patients undergoing RIRS is not currently indicated.
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.