ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Does the ureteral access sheath reduce infections in previously drained sepsis patients?
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFlexible ureteroscopy is the main treatment option in upper tract urolithiasis. In cases of urinary tract infection associated to ureterolithiasis, drainage is required. Different authors prefer using a ureteral access sheath (UAS) to reduce complications. Our objective is to analyze the role of UAS in patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy previously drained endoscopically for urosepsis.
methodsRetrospective single-center study. We reviewed patients with urolithiasis associated with urosepsis requiring endoscopic drainage between 2017 and 2024. Only patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy as final treatment were selected. We compared those using a UAS versus those who did not. Statistical analysis used Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests.
resultsSeventy-seven patients were included, with UAS used in 59.7%. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Infectious complications occurred in 13% of UAS patients vs. 3.2% of non-UAS patients (p = 0.17). Overall SFR was 84% with no significant difference between groups. Across all multivariable models, stent dwell time was the only independent predictor of postoperative infectious complications. UAS use was not independently associated with reduced or increased infection risk.
conclusionsIn patients with prior drainage for urosepsis, ureteral access sheath use conferred no clear clinical benefit. Larger prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41284054What 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.