Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42474796›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2026

Real-world DISS practice combined with and without access sheath: insights from the global DISS dataset: a EAU endourology study.

Demetra Fuligni, Vineet Gauhar, Amelia Pietropaolo, Daniele Castellani, Chi-Fai Ng, Khi Yung Fong, Begona Ballesta Martinez, Joy Garcia Castillo, Marek Zawadzki, Arman Tsaturyan and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of 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.

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

24 authors.

Demetra Fuligni *Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK. demetra.fuligni@gmail.com.
Vineet Gauhar *Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Amelia PietropaoloDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Daniele CastellaniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, LUM University, Casamassima, Bari, Italy.
Chi-Fai NgS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Khi Yung FongDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Begona Ballesta MartinezDepartment of Urology, University Hospital del Vinalopo, Elche, Spain.
Joy Garcia CastilloDepartment of Urology, Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Sta Cruz, Manila, Philippines.
Marek ZawadzkiUrology Unit, St. Anna Hospital, Piaseczno, Poland.
Arman TsaturyanDepartment of Urology, Erebouni Medical Center, Yerevan, Armenia.
Deepak RagooriDepartment of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Vigen MalkhasyanDepartment of Urology, Moscow Urology Center, Botkin Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Albert El HajjDepartment of Urology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Benedict BeckerAsklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Benjamin Lim Tze YingDepartment of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Jia-Lun KwokEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Petrisor GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Bogdan Florin GeavleteDepartment of Urology, Saint John Emergency Hospital, Bucharest, Romania.
Pablo ContrerasDepartment of Urology, Hospital Alemán de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Esteban EmilianiDepartment of Urology, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
Luis RicoEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Steffi Kar Kei YuenEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Bhaskar SomaniEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe role of ureteral access sheath (UAS) during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) remains undecided in the era of direct in-scope suction (DISS), which subserves dust and debris removal with active intrarenal pressure control. This study aims to evaluate the utility of UAS on perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing DISS-assisted fURS.

methodsThis prospective, multicentre study analysed data from an international registry of patients who underwent successful fURS with DISS at 16 centres across 14 countries between May and December 2025. Patients were grouped based on whether UAS was used. All participants had one non-contrast CT scans (NCCT) before and at 30 days post operatively. 100% Stone-free rate (SFR) was defined as zero residual fragment (ZFR) on NCCT in bone window (Grade A) or overall stone free (OSF) was Grade A + B where grade B reported a single RF of 2 mm. The study recorded perioperative outcomes, immediate Clavien-Dindo complications and new anatomical anomalies on 3 month imaging. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors that predicted SFR and complications.

resultsA total of 540 patients were divided into Group1 undergoing DISS without UAS 296 (54.8%), and Group2 had DISS with UAS 244 (45.2%). ZRF Grade A (Group1vs Group2) was 72.6% vs. 70% and OSF (grade A + B) was 95.9% vs. 88.9% (p = 0.011) respectively but no significant differences in planned re-intervention. Group2 cohort including larger stone burden (12.0 vs. 10.0 mm, p = 0.016), multiplicity higher pre-stenting (57.0% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001) and more complex cases, operative time was significantly longer in this cohort (64 vs. 39 min, p < 0.001). Although OSF (Grade A + B) rates were high in both groups, they were significantly higher in the non-UAS cohort compared with the UAS cohort (95.9% vs. 88.9%, p = 0.011). Fever > 38.C was significantly higher in Group 2(11.5 vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001) as was 30 day any cause re-admission (7% vs. 15, p < 0.001) with zero sepsis case. Multivariate analysis did not reveal any specific association for ZRF but the use of UAS (OR 6.52, 3.52-12.41, p < 0.001) and pre-stenting (OR 2.63, 1.44-4.90, p,0.002) increases the odds for 30 day complications.

conclusionsDISS with UAS (conventional or Flexible and Navigable Suction access sheath FANS) is preferred in fURS for larger, multiple, or complex stones. Non-UAS DISS is a safe, effective option for smaller, simpler cases, showing high ZRF and OSF rates with fewer low grade complications. Dusting with simultaneous aspiration removes fragments efficiently, may extend operative times, and can reduce post-operative stenting without increasing readmissions or infection risk. These results support tailoring DISS management to individual cases.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiUreteral CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSuctionAccess sheathDISSFANSLithotripsyUAS

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.