ArticleBMC urology2026
Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) versus conventional stone-pushing technique for impacted upper ureteral stones: a retrospective cohort study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImpacted upper ureteral stones pose a significant risk of ureteral injury and stricture formation during ureteroscopic procedures. The Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath (FANS) integrates in-situ lithotripsy, continuous suction, and irrigation. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of FANS with the conventional ureteroscopic technique in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones.
methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted involving 115 patients (FANS group: n = 50; Conventional group: n = 65). The FANS group underwent in-situ holmium laser lithotripsy with real-time irrigation and suction facilitated by FANS. The Conventional group underwent in-situ lithotripsy using a semi-rigid ureteroscope, with subsequent attempts to push stones into the renal pelvis before flexible ureteroscopic fragment extraction. The rates of ureteral stricture (within 3 months) and other perioperative parameters, including operative time, in-situ lithotripsy duration, and complications, were compared.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The FANS group exhibited significantly longer operative and in-situ lithotripsy times. However, the incidence of ureteral stricture and perforation was lower in the FANS group (2% vs. 7.7% and 2% vs. 6.2%, respectively). Subgroup analyses revealed that prolonged in-situ lithotripsy time was a significant risk factor for ureteral stricture in the control group but not in the FANS group. The immediate stone-free rate was comparable between groups, with a lower rate of postoperative fever in the FANS group.
conclusionFor impacted upper ureteral stones, FANS assisted in-situ lithotripsy significantly reduces the risk of postoperative ureteral stricture without compromising stone clearance, offering a safer alternative to the conventional stone-pushing technique.
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.