SynthesisBJU international2026
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and perioperative outcomes of contemporary flexible and navigable suction access sheath-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (FANS-RIRS) against percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the management of large upper urinary tract stones, as despite technological advances in RIRS such as high-powered lasers and FANS that have substantially enhanced its performance, current guidelines continue to recommend PCNL as first-line treatment for renal stones >2cm.
methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies performing direct comparisons of FANS-RIRS against PCNL in adult patients until September 2025. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs) and need for ancillary procedures. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospitalisation, and postoperative complications.
resultsA total of 10 studies (three randomised control trials, seven retrospective cohort studies) comprising 2347 patients were included; preoperative stone sizes were predominantly 2-3 cm. All PCNL procedures in the studies included were performed as mini-PCNL. The SFRs for FANS-RIRS were comparable with mini-PCNL across all stone sizes (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.17) and stones ≥2 cm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.08), with low heterogeneity. Ancillary procedures rates were similar (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61-2.44). FANS-RIRS was associated with significantly fewer overall complications, specifically smaller haemoglobin decline, need for transfusion, and shorter hospital stay. However, mini-PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times for stones ≥2 cm. Urosepsis rates were low and similar between both groups. Limitations include predominance of Asian studies, variability of practice, and inclusion of non-randomised studies.
conclusionsContemporary FANS-RIRS achieves SFRs comparable to mini-PCNL even for 2-3 cm stones, while offering superior safety profiles and shorter hospitalisation; this supports FANS-RIRS as a viable primary treatment in selected patients.
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.