ArticleBMC urology2025
Tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscope: a single-institution experience including in vitro experiments.
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 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.
- Size matters: not all scopes are created equal! A flow rate reality check for single-use flexible ureteroscopes.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical application value of tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (TFS-UAS), this study compares the efficacy and safety of TFS-UAS versus traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) in treating unilateral renal or proximal ureteral calculi, and further summarizes the usage strategy of TFS-UAS by synthesizing vitro experiment and surgical best practices.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 196 patients with renal or proximal ureteral calculi treated with FURS and holmium laser lithotripsy at Shuguang Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Patients were divided into TFS-UAS and T-UAS groups. Primary data included operative time, immediate SFR (iSFR), and 2-week SFR. Secondary data encompassed changes in blood parameters (leukocytes, hemoglobin, urea nitrogen, creatinine), complications, and hospital stay.
resultsThis retrospective study found that urologists preferred to use TFS-UAS for larger (17.73 ± 7.79 mm vs. 12.56 ± 5.14 mm, P < 0.001), harder (1156.52 ± 420.15 vs. 778.39 ± 513.46 Hounsfield units, P < 0.001), and more complex (modified STONE score: 10.86 ± 2.51 vs. 7.37 ± 2.28, P < 0.001) upper urinary tract calculi. No significant differences in operative time or SFR were found between the TFS-UAS and T-UAS groups overall. However, for stones ≥ 15 mm, those that were larger(22.57 ± 6.35 mm vs. 18.70 ± 3.82 mm, P = 0.001), harder(1160.76 ± 382.84 vs. 896.56 ± 465.33, P = 0.007), and more complex(modified STONE score: 11.43 ± 2.40 vs. 8.63 ± 2.31, P < 0.001), TFS-UAS significantly reduced operative time (53.92 ± 21.77 vs. 65.76 ± 22.43 min, P < 0.001) and improved iSFR(91.89% vs. 73.17%, P = 0.063), 2-week SFR(81.08% vs. 56.10%, P = 0.018).
conclusionsTFS-UAS combined with FURS significantly improves operative efficiency and SFRs for upper urinary tract calculi ≥ 15 mm, demonstrating clinical advantages.
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.