ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2025
A novel bendable suction sheath in flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi.
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 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.
- 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
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
ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using a disposable bendable negative pressure suction sheath in combination with a disposable ureteroscope for treating upper urinary tract calculi and to compare it with the conventional ureteral access sheath with a lassoed mesh basket.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data from patients with upper urinary tract calculi who underwent flexible ureteroscopy at a tertiary hospital in Beijing between March 2023 and March 2024. The study included two groups: 69 patients were treated with disposable bendable negative pressure suction sheaths (negative pressure group) and 83 with conventional ureteral access sheath combined with lassoed mesh baskets (conventional group). Variables analyzed included operative time, stone-free rate, length of postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complication rate, and hospitalization cost.ResultThe operative time for the negative pressure group was 119.8 ± 10.4 min, which was longer than that in the conventional group (93.2 ± 9.8 min). The postoperative hemoglobin drop was 5.3 ± 2.2 g/L in the negative pressure group and 4.7 ± 1.2 g/L in the conventional group. The hospitalization cost for the negative pressure group was ¥28,273 ± 5389, which was significantly lower than that for the conventional group (¥30,786.1 ± 4055). The stone-free rate at 1 week postoperatively was 84.1% (58/69) in the negative pressure group, which was significantly higher than that in the conventional group (68.7%). However, there was no statistically significant difference in stone-free rate at 1 month postoperatively between the two groups.ConclusionsThe use of a disposable ureteroscope with a bendable negative pressure suction sheath can improve short-term postoperative stone-free rate. However, this approach may increase surgical complexity, extend operative time, and heighten the risk of intraoperative bleeding. This procedure is recommended to be performed by physicians with extensive experience in flexible ureteroscopy to ensure safety and efficacy.
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.