ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Multimodal comparison of 19 single-use flexible ureteroscopes: bench testing, operative video assessment, and surgeon ratings.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSingle-use flexible ureteroscopes (fURSs) differ substantially in optical and mechanical properties, yet comparative evidence remains limited. We performed a multimodal in vitro and clinical assessment of 19 commercially available single-use fURSs to quantify performance variability and examine which device characteristics are associated with surgeon-reported usability.
methodsEach of 19 models was bench-tested for field of view, laser-fiber safety distance, irrigation flow, deflection, image resolution, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and color discrimination. One surgeon used each device in three separate patients (57 procedures total) and completed a standardized questionnaire after every case; three blinded reviewers scored anonymized intraoperative video. As a secondary analysis, device-level bench metrics were related to patient-level outcomes using a permutation test with correction for multiple comparisons.
resultsAll domains showed marked variability (resolution 0.447-0.826 lp/mm; baseline deflection 219-312°, lowest 134° with accessories; empty-channel irrigation 27.9-39.0 mL/min; field of view 75-110°). In secondary, exploratory analysis, no bench metric showed an association with surgeon-reported or video-based outcomes surviving correction for multiple comparisons (54 tests, minimum q = 0.20).
conclusionContemporary single-use fURSs show substantial heterogeneity, and no single device excelled across every domain. Device selection should weigh several performance characteristics against the intended clinical scenario; whether bench performance predicts surgeon-reported usability remains unresolved and warrants larger, adequately powered studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803974What 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.