Trial reportBJU international2026
F-URS with FANS versus mPCNL for 2-3 cm UUTS: a RCT with a subgroup analysis of 2-2.5 cm stones.
Trial report in BJU international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) with a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) in the treatment of 2-3 cm upper urinary tract stones (UUTS), with a prespecified subgroup analysis for stones ≥2 to <2.5 cm.
methodsThis randomized controlled trial enrolled 326 patients with 2-3 cm UUTS between June 2023 and December 2025. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either f-URS with FANS or mPCNL. A prespecified subgroup analysis was conducted for stones measuring ≥2 to <2.5 cm. The primary outcomes were the immediate and 1-month stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included the operative duration, decrease in haemoglobin, hospital stay, and complication rate.
resultsThe baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the overall 2-3 cm cohort, the FANS group achieved immediate and 1-month SFRs comparable to those of the mPCNL group. Although the operative time was longer in the FANS group, it was associated with significantly less haemoglobin loss and a shorter hospital stay, with no significant difference in infection-related complications. Notably, in the subgroup of stones ≥2 to <2.5 cm, the FANS group demonstrated a non-inferior SFR at both time points, and the operative time was not significantly longer than that of the mPCNL group.
conclusionFor 2-3 cm UUTS, f-URS with FANS offers a SFR comparable to that of mPCNL, along with the advantages of reduced blood loss and shorter hospitalization. In the ≥2 to <2.5 cm subgroup, FANS shows comprehensive benefits over mPCNL. These findings support FANS as an effective alternative to mPCNL for 2-3 cm stones and a potentially preferred option for stones measuring 2-2.5 cm.
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.