ArticleBJU international2026
Benchtop comparison of seven ureteroscopes: evaluating physical properties and deflection with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths.
Article in BJU international, 2026. 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.
- Parameter mapping for the use of flexible and navigable suction sheath: an in vitro study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Use of Novel 6.3 Fr Ureteroscope in Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS): Comparative Experience with Conventional Ureteroscopes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Sand clearance vs. flowrate during ureteroscopy: studies in an in-vitro transparent kidney model.World journal of urology · 2025Article
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
objectivesTo evaluate the physical properties of seven ureteroscopes (URSs) and compare the maximal angle of deflection (MAD) when used with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths (FANSs) of varying sizes. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven commercial URSs (ranging from 6.3 to 9.5 F in size) were evaluated for outer diameter, irrigation flow rate, image resolution, colour reproduction and MAD. MAD was measured under three conditions: standalone URS deflection without the FANS; standard deflection of the FANS while positioned at the URS tip; and advanced FANS deflection, with the URS fully deflected beyond the FANS, and the FANS advanced. For each URS type, standalone deflection was repeated five times, and FANS deflections were repeated four times to calculate an average. FANS sizes of 10/12 F, 11/13 F and 12/14 F (ClearPetra) were tested.
resultsThe HugeMed URS had the smallest scope diameter (6.3 F) and the lowest flow (20 mL/min), while the Endoso URS had the highest flow (32 mL/min). All the URSs had similar resolutions except the MacroLux, Seegen and Endoso URSs, which were noticeably superior in this respect. Colour reproduction was best with the MacroLux and Endoso URSs. Without a FANS, the standalone mean MAD across all URS types was 293°. Standard deflection with FANS significantly decreased the MAD (up to a 49% reduction), whereas advanced deflection maintained the MAD (up to 269°). Larger FANS, especially the 12/14-F size, tended to reduce deflection. The MacroLux URS maintained the highest MAD across all FANS sizes, followed by the Seegen and Urotech devices.
conclusionUreteroscope deflection significantly varied by model. Use of a FANS reduced deflection angles, especially with larger sheaths. However, advancing the FANS over a deflected scope preserved deflection angles. Overall, the MacroLux URS showed the best deflection with FANS, whereas the Seegen, Endoso and Urotech URSs showed a balance between flow rate, optics and deflection. These findings could inform clinicians in their selection of a URS for endourology procedures.
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.