ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
Retrospective analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire, flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath for the management of 2-3-cm kidney stones.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Intelligent pressure-guided flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy improves stone-free rates and reduces infectious complications in upper urinary tract infectious stones.American journal of translational research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath (F-UAS) versus traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) for 2-3-cm kidney stones.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included 136 patients with kidney stones treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS at Shenzhen Second People's Hospital from November 2022 to November 2023 (F-UAS group) and 132 patients treated with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using T-UAS from November 2021 to October 2022 (T-UAS group). Preoperative assessments included imaging studies (kidney, ureter, and bladder X-ray; noncontrast computed tomography; and renal ultrasound) and laboratory tests (complete blood count, biochemical tests, coagulation function, and urine culture). The stone clearance rate, operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and complications were compared between the two groups.ResultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced. The F-UAS group showed significantly higher stone clearance rate (91.9% vs. 81.8%, p = 0.014), shorter operation time (51.0 ± 13.9 vs. 59.8 ± 18.2 min, p < 0.001), and lower postoperative antibiotic use (2.9% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.027) than the T-UAS group. The intraoperative blood loss and length of hospital stay did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionsFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using F-UAS improves stone clearance, reduces infection-related complications, and shortens operation time compared with that using T-UAS in the treatment of 2-3-cm kidney stones. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.