ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2026
Efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure-controlled ureteral access sheath: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of intelligent pressure-controlled ureteral access sheaths (IPC-UAS) compared with conventional ureteral access sheaths (UAS), flexible vacuum ureteral access sheath (FANS), or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed/MEDLINE for studies published up to November 15, 2025. Studies involving patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) with IPC-UAS were included. Primary outcomes were stone-free rates (SFR) and complication rates, while secondary outcomes included operative time, intrarenal pressure control, retreatment rate, and readmission rate.
resultsA total of 15 studies including 2293 patients were analyzed. In the IPC-UAS group, SFR ranged from 80.2 to 95.6% at 1 month. Meta-analyses detected no statistically significant difference in 1-month SFR between IPC-UAS and PCNL (p=0.160) or between IPC-UAS and FANS (p=0.109), whereas IPC-UAS was associated with a higher SFR than conventional UAS in a single study (p=0.032). Postoperative complications in the IPC-UAS group ranged from 2 to 34.7% and were predominantly minor. IPC-UAS was associated with significantly lower complication rates compared with PCNL (p=0.024), while no statistically significant differences were detected compared with conventional UAS or FANS (p=0.390, p=0.453, respectively). No statistically significant differences were detected among the groups in intraoperative complications, operative time, and retreatment rates.
conclusionThe available evidence suggests that IPC-UAS may be an emerging option for f-URS; however, current comparative data are insufficient to establish equivalence or superiority over other types of UAS and PCNL. Given the heterogeneity and limited precision of the available evidence, its potential clinical benefits require further evaluation in well-designed prospective randomized studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848300What 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.