ArticleBMC urology2026
Prospective comparative validation of a novel endoscopy chair and endoscope manipulation apparatus (EasyFlex) for ergonomic improvement in fURS procedures.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to validate the functionality and usability of a doctor's endoscopy chair and an endoscope carrying/manipulation apparatus known as the EasyFlex.
methodsPrototype models of the EasyFlex apparatus were evaluated by five expert urologists specializing in endourology at three medical centers. The surgical and ergonomic advantages of the doctor's endoscopy chair and the endoscope carrying/manipulation apparatus were compared with those used during traditional flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) procedures for kidney stones, with ergonomic outcomes assessed using the Ergomini scale.
resultsThe ergonomic evaluation of both systems revealed that surgeons experienced significantly greater ergonomic discomfort during traditional fURS procedures compared to those using the EasyFlex system, as indicated by higher total ergonomic scores (37.6 vs. 12.6, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the EasyFlex group demonstrated a significantly lower rate of intraoperative complications than the traditional fURS group (11.8% vs. 27%, p = 0.017).
conclusionCompared with the traditional approach, the results obtained in our study demonstrated that the EasyFlex apparatus could provide superior ergonomic conditions during fURS procedures. Additionally, the rate of intraoperative complications was lower in the EasyFlex group.
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.