ArticleBMC urology2025
A comparative study of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with single-use flexible ureteroscopes and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of kidney stones > 2.5 cm: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in BMC 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.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Is 3 cm the upper limit of stone size for effective steerable ureteroscopic renal stone evacuation?World journal of urology · 2026Observational
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveWhen performing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), compared with conventional ureteral access sheaths (UAS), flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANs) can reduce the number of lithotripsy sessions and increase the stone-free rate (SFR). They have been widely applied in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL). Currently, ureteroscopic flexible ureteroscopes equipped with FANs are also showing remarkable outcomes in the treatment of large kidney stones. Therefore, the objective of this study was to explore the efficacy of single-use flexible ureteroscopes (su-fURS) combined with FANs in the treatment of kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm and to compare it with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
methodsData of patients who underwent treatment of 2.5-3.8 cm kidney stones in the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong Second Medical University from January 2024 to December 2024 were included in the study. According to the different surgical methods, they were divided into PCNL group and FANs group. The general data, intraoperative and postoperative related data of the patients in the two groups were collected and compared, where P < 0.05 represents statistical significance.
resultsA total of 76 patients (41 PCNL, 35 FANs) were included in this study, and both groups achieved a very favorable SFR (85%, 93% vs. 80%, 91% P = 0.536, 0.840), and the difference was not statistically significant. The PCNL group had a shorter mean operative time (99.39 vs. 135.49 min P < 0.001) and a lower mean hospitalization cost (22, 865.60 vs. 26,031.91 ¥ P < 0.001). The FANs had a lower level of postoperative hemoglobin (Hb) drop (6.31 vs. 11.05 g/L P = 0.010) and a less severe level of postoperative pain (1.97 vs. 3.41 points P < 0.001), faster postoperative recovery (3.29 vs. 6.54d P < 0.001).
conclusionsFANs combined with su-FURS for the treatment of kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm have a high SFR, with less pain and quicker recovery for patients, making it a method worth promoting and applying in the clinic.
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.