ArticleBJU international2026
Flexible and navigable suction access sheaths: balancing sheath and scope size for desired flows.
Article in BJU international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated irrigation systems in mitigating laser-induced temperature during simulated ureteroscopy.BJU international · 2026Article
- Endoscopic visual cues of intrarenal pressure during ureteroscopy: in vivo porcine studies.BJU international · 2026Article
- Paradigm shifts in fluid management using suction irrigation pressure autoregulating systems in modern flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: an evidence-based narrative from EAU Endourology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- Use of Novel 6.3 Fr Ureteroscope in Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS): Comparative Experience with Conventional Ureteroscopes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo study the effects of ureteroscope diameter, 'flexible and navigable suction' access sheaths (FANS) diameter, and irrigation pressure on intrarenal pressure (IRP) and irrigation fluid flow rates in ex vivo porcine kidneys; these benchtop data were compared against mathematical modelling results. MATERIALS AND
methodsFresh ex vivo porcine kidneys and ureters were used. The tip of an 11/13- or 10/12-F ClearPetra® FANS was placed within the renal pelvis. Either a 9.5-F Boston Scientific LithoVue™, 7.5-F PUSEN PU3033, or 6.3-F HugeMed HU30M ureteroscope was inserted through the sheath. Irrigation pressures of 0, 50, 100, 150 and 200 mmHg were applied. No suction was applied. The corresponding steady state IRP and flow rate was recorded. This was replicated in three separate porcine kidneys. Benchtop data were compared to mathematical model predictions. The maximum flow rates that could be achieved with an IRP ≤30 mmHg were extrapolated.
resultsThe FANS and ureteroscope geometries affect outflow resistance. Lower outflow resistances, allow higher irrigation pressures and flow rates to be used whilst maintaining an IRP ≤30 mmHg (without suction). Whilst keeping IRP ≤30 mmHg with an 11/13-F FANS: ~700 mmHg irrigation (~120 mL/min) could be used with a 6.3-F ureteroscope; ~300 mmHg irrigation (flow rate ~65 mL/min) could be used with a 7.5-F ureteroscope; ~100 mmHg irrigation (~15 mL/min) could be used with a 9.5-F ureteroscope.
conclusionsUsing a FANS in the renal pelvis potentially allows for higher irrigation pressures whilst maintaining a low IRP (without the need for suction). With intraoperative monitoring of IRP, irrigation pressure could be increased to achieve flow rates up to 24 times higher than those achievable with gravity irrigation (120 vs ~5 mL/min).
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.