Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42751585›Full record

ArticleJournal of medicine and life2026

Comparative performance of single-use flexible ureteroscopes with and without direct in-scope suction: a retrospective analysis.

Petrisor Geavlete, Razvan Multescu, Cristian Mares, Cosmin Ene, Catalin Bulai, Bogdan Geavlete

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medicine and life, 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

6 authors.

Petrisor GeavleteCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Razvan MultescuCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Cristian MaresCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Cosmin EneCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Catalin BulaiCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Bogdan GeavleteCarol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ureteroscopy represents the primary therapeutic approach for a broad spectrum of upper urinary tract stones. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of various models of single-use flexible ureteroscopes, some of them with direct in-scope suction (DISS) capabilities. A retrospective study was conducted over a 16-month period, including 75 consecutive patients who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal lithiasis. Patients were allocated into three groups according to the flexible ureteroscope used: a 7.5 Fr single-use ureteroscope without suction (Group A), a 7.5 Fr single-use ureteroscope with direct in-scope suction (Group B), and a 9.2 Fr single-use ureteroscope with a 5.1 Fr working channel and direct in-scope suction (Group C). Perioperative outcomes, residual stone fragments, and subjective intrarenal visualization were evaluated and compared among groups. A total of 75 patients were included, with stones most frequently located in the renal pelvis (40.0%), followed by the inferior (30.6%), middle (21.3%), and superior calyces (8.0%). Residual stone fragments were observed in 24.0% of cases in Group A, 16.0% in Group B, and 4.0% in Group C; although these differences did not reach statistical significance (

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSuctiondirect in scope suctionsingle-use flexible ureteroscopesworking channel

Identifiers

PMID42751585
PMCPMC13580502

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.