ArticleBMC urology2026
A feasibility study of a novel irrigation technique for reducing intrapelvic pressure during ureterorenoscopy using conventional devices.
Article in BMC urology, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUreterorenoscopy (URS) is a widely accepted approach for managing upper urinary tract stones, including renal calculi measuring > 20 mm. However, an elevated intrapelvic pressure (IPP) during URS can lead to infectious and procedural complications. We developed a simple irrigation technique and evaluated its efficiency in reducing IPP during URS.
methodsIn this technique, a 14/16-Fr ureteral access sheath (UAS) was advanced to the ureteropelvic junction or distal to the stone. A 4.7-Fr single-J ureteral stent was inserted through the UAS, with the tip placed in the renal pelvis or upper calyx. The stent enabled continuous fluid outflow and reduced the IPP. We defined this technique as the “Continuous Alternative Reduction of the intrapelvic Pressure” (CARP) system. The study comprised: (1) IPP measurements in a representative case comparing conventional URS and the CARP system, and (2) a retrospective analysis of patients treated using the CARP system between June 2020 and October 2024, excluding those with staghorn calculi.
resultsThe CARP system significantly reduced the IPP. In the conventional URS setup, pressure exceeded 100 cmH₂O during flushing, whereas the CARP system maintained pressures below 25 cmH₂O. Overall, 34 renal and 45 ureteral stones were analyzed. The median stone burden was 20.5 mm for renal and 18.2 mm for ureteral stones. The stone-free rates were 97.1% for renal and 97.8% for ureteral stones. Postoperative fever occurred in 5.1% of the patients. No UAS-related ureteral strictures were observed.
conclusionThis technique can be easily implemented using existing devices and has demonstrated favorable outcomes with minimal complications.
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.