ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
First European experience with LithoVue™ Elite: Multicentre end-user experience and feedback.
Article in Central European 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The LithoVue™ Elite (LVE) is a novel ureteroscope which allows measurement of intrarenal pressure (IRP) during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). Here we report the survey of first European experience. Material and methods: A multicentric prospective analysis of end-user experience and feedback was performed for 51 consecutive patients undergoing fURS using LVE across 9 European centres involving 11 surgeons. Results: A total of 51 cases were analysed with a mean stone size of 9.9 mm (range:4-30 mm), standard ureteral access sheath used in 28 patients (54.9%), with multiple stones in 18 (35.3%) patients. The stone location was lower pole (n = 24; 47.1%), renal pelvis (n = 12; 23.5%), proximal ureter (n = 5; 9.8%), upper pole (n = 4; 7.8%), and other locations (n = 6; 11.7%). The irrigation method used for URS was manual pressure irrigation (n = 25, 49%), gravity with pressure cuff (n = 12; 23.5%), gravity with no pressure cuff (n = 9; 17.6%), and fluid management system or pump (n = 5; 9.8%). A planned pressure threshold (in mmHg) was documented by the surgeon in all cases, with a mean setpoint of ≤ 50 mmHg in 26 (51%) patients, 51-60 mmHg in 13 (25.5%) patients and above 60 mm Hg in 12 (23.5%) patients. Post-procedurally, in 48 (94.1%) cases, surgeons reported that real-time IRP monitoring influenced their surgical technique. The most common intraoperative modifications included reduced manual irrigation in 19 (37.3%), lowered irrigation bag height in 13 (25.50%), adjusted sheath positioning in 10 (19.6%), and reduced or avoidance irrigation pressure in 6 (11.8%) cases. Regarding perceived value, the pressure-sensing scope was rated as highly desirable in 28 procedures (54.9%), and moderately desirable in 16 (31.4%) procedures, yielding a combined desirability rating of 86.3%. Importantly, all 11 surgeons (100%) indicated an intention to continue using LVE, particularly in high-risk patients or complex procedures. Conclusions: Real time IRP measurement influenced intraoperative technique in majority of cases with surgeons adopting real-time strategies to reduce IRP. The LVE scope was rated as desirable by most users and was universally endorsed for continued use, especially in higher-risk scenarios. These findings support the integration of IRP monitoring as a valuable adjunct in endourologic practice.
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.