ArticleBMC urology2025
Comparative study of ureteral access sheath versus suction access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRetrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a minimally invasive technique for managing renal and upper ureteral stones. Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) facilitate instrument access and reduce intrarenal pressure, but their impact on stone-free rates (SFR) remains debated. Suction ureteral access sheaths (S-UAS) offer improved flexibility and can be connected to suction devices, enhancing stone fragment removal. This study aims to compare the outcomes of traditional UAS and S-UAS in RIRS.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted at Chimei Medical Center from January 2022 to December 2024, including 104 patients who underwent RIRS with either traditional UAS (n = 53) or S-UAS (n = 51). Baseline characteristics, operative time, stone-free rates (SFR), postoperative complications, and the need for auxiliary procedures were analyzed. Stone-free was defined as absence of residual fragments > 4 mm (and > 2 mm for stricter assessment) on KUB. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of stone size, location, and number on outcomes.
resultsImmediate clinically acceptable SFR was significantly higher in the S-UAS group (82.0%) compared to the traditional UAS group (60.4%) (p = 0.016). At one month, no significant difference was observed between the groups. The S-UAS group required fewer auxiliary procedures (5.9% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.015) and demonstrated a higher SFR for lower calyx stones (81.8% vs. 55.2%, p = 0.046). Operative time, hospital stay, and complication rates were similar between groups.
conclusionThe S-UAS facilitates efficient stone dust evacuation, improves immediate clinically acceptable SFRs, and reduces auxiliary procedure rates without increasing complications. These findings support its use in RIRS, particularly in select stone characteristics. Prospective studies with larger cohorts and standardized imaging follow-up are warranted to validate these results. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.