Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42326217›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Tubeless Ureteroscopy: A Comprehensive Literature Review.

Ahmed S Aboelatta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Ahmed S AboelattaUrology Department, Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Calow, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stent omission post-ureteroscopy, defined as performing ureteroscopic stone treatment without placement of a postoperative ureteral stent, has evolved from an experimental concept to a recognized, guideline-endorsed practice for appropriately selected patients. A persistent gap exists between the available evidence and clinical adoption, with ureteral stent placement remaining the predominant practice following ureteroscopic procedures at most centres worldwide, reflecting ongoing tension between clinical caution and evidence-based care. This comprehensive literature review synthesizes evidence from randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, registry studies, and prospective cohort studies examining the safety, efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, healthcare utilization, and patient selection criteria for tubeless ureteroscopy published through February 2026. Key findings consistently demonstrate that stent omission in uncomplicated cases reduces lower urinary tract symptoms, hematuria, and stent-related morbidity without meaningfully increasing the risk of postoperative complications or unplanned healthcare encounters. Evolving technologies, including laser dusting techniques, high-powered holmium and thulium fiber lasers, suction ureteral access sheaths, and single-use flexible ureteroscopes, have further expanded the candidate pool for stentless approaches. Landmark trials such as the SOUL study and a 2025 multicenter randomized controlled trial provide the most rigorous modern evidence supporting stent omission. Tubeless ureteroscopy is safe, superior for patient experience, and warranting of broader adoption in appropriately selected patients. Current evidence supports American Urological Association and European Association of Urology guideline recommendations for stent omission in uncomplicated cases.

Indexed as

double-j stentlaser lithotripsylower urinary tract symptomstemporary ureteral stenttubeless ureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID42326217
PMCPMC13279707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.