Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41148343›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Lasing strategy and its influence on 30-day operative outcomes in flexible ureteroscopy with FANS: inferences from a real-world prospective multicenter study by EAU-endourology and AUSET.

Vineet Gauhar, Carlo Giulioni, Federico Falsetti, Angelo Cafarelli, Steffi Kar-Kei Yuen, Khi Yung Fong, Karl Tan, Jia-Lun Kwok, Kazumi Taguchi, Mehmet Ilker Gökce and 22 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors.

Vineet Gauhar *Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Carlo Giulioni *Urology Unit, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Casa di Cura Villa Igea, Ancona, 60127, Italy. carlo.giulioni9@gmail.com.
Federico FalsettiDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area- Urology, Division of Urology, Andrology and Kidney Transplantation Unit, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Bari, Italy.
Angelo CafarelliUrology Unit, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Casa di Cura Villa Igea, Ancona, 60127, Italy.
Steffi Kar-Kei YuenEndourology Section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Khi Yung FongDepartment of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Karl TanDepartment of Urology, Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Jia-Lun KwokDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Kazumi TaguchiDepartment of Nephro-Urology, Nagoya City University Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Nagoya, Japan.
Mehmet Ilker GökceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Wissam KamalUrology Unit, King Fahd General Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Vigen MalkhasyanDepartment of Urology, A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Saeed Bin HamriUrology Department, Specialized Medical Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Luis RicoDepartment of Urology, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Pablo ContrerasDepartment of Urology, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Yi Quan TanDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Kremena PetkovaDepartment of Urology and Nephrology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Mohamed ElshazlyUrology Department, Menoufia University, Shibin el Kom, Egypt.
Yiloren TanidirDepartment of Urology, Medicana Atasehir Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Chu Ann ChaiDepartment of Surgery, Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Azimdjon N TursunkulovUrology Division, AkfaMedline Hospital, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Anil ShresthaDepartment of Urology, National Academy of Medical Sciences, Bir Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Boyke SoebhaliDepartment of Urology, Abdul Wahab Sjahranie Hospital Medical Faculty, Muliawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.
Albert El HajjDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Mohamed Amine LakmichiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Mohammed the VIth of Marrakesh, Marrakesh, Morocco.
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Satyendra PersaudDivision of Clinical Surgical Sciences, University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago.
Abhishek SinghMuljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.
Olivier TraxerEndourology Section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Bhaskar SomaniEndourology Section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Daniele CastellaniEndourology Section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare operative and 30-day outcomes of dusting versus popcorning lithotripsy during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with flexible suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) in a real-world multicenter study.

methodsThis prospective analysis included 704 adults from 21 centers undergoing FURS for kidney stone with FANS between August 2023 and August 2024. Patients were stratified by lasing strategy into dusting (n = 281) or popcorning (n = 423). Operative parameters, complications, and stone-free status (SFS) at 30 days-assessed by 2 mm slice non-contrast CT scan were compared. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of complete clearance (no fragment).

resultsPatients in the popcorning group presented with larger and denser stones (> 2 cm: 20.7% vs. 10.7%, p = 0.007; median HU 1100 vs. 1051, p = 0.003). Operative times were consistently longer with popcorning, including lasing (17 vs. 14 min), ureteroscopy (34 vs. 30 min), and overall duration (50 vs. 44 min, all p < 0.001). Safety outcomes were comparable, although ureteric injury related to sheath placement was observed exclusively in the dusting group (6.8% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). At 30 days, dusting demonstrated superior outcomes: complete clearance (69.4% vs. 53.9%, p < 0.001), and lower reintervention rates (2.1% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis using sequentially adjusted models confirmed stone volume as a negative predictor of clearance (OR 0.76-0.81, p ≤ 0.005), while use of Thulium fiber and pulsed Thulium: YAG lasers increased odds of achieving zero residual fragments.

conclusionDusting was associated with higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions compared with popcorning. However, laser technology, rather than lasing strategy, was the strongest predictor of outcomes, underscoring the need for individualized treatment planning.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyUreteroscopesUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeDustingFlexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheathFlexible ureterorenoscopyLaser lithotripsyPopcorning

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.