SynthesisBMC urology2025
Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional ureteral access sheath for flexible ureteroscopy in renal and proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteral Access Sheath in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Paradigm shifts in fluid management using suction irrigation pressure autoregulating systems in modern flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: an evidence-based narrative from EAU Endourology.Current opinion in urology · 2026Review
- Concurrent septic shock and massive renal hematoma following flexible ureteroscopy resulting in emergency nephrectomy: a case report.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteric Access Sheath in RIRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Suction, flexion, and noise profile of three flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths: a benchtop comparison.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stone Disease in Elderly Patients: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparison of vacuum-assisted flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2-3 cm upper tract stones: a real-world cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Suction Ureteral Access Sheaths During Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones: A Prospective Study and Cost Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Article
- Review
- Head-to-head comparison of novel suction technologies in endourology: suction mini-PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy using flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths for renal stone management. An EAU-endourology, propensity score-matched analysis of 1372 patients.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Optimizing the Scope-Sheath Compatibility in RIRS: Matching of Reusable and Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes with FANS.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Beyond the sheath: unmasking true predictors of Post-fURS fever through propensitymatched precision.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional ureteral access sheaths (T-UAS) are limited by rigidity and lack of suction, potentially increasing complications. Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS-UAS) offer improved maneuverability and active suction, but comparative evidence on their efficacy and safety is scarce. This meta-analysis evaluates FANS-UAS versus T-UAS in flexible ureteroscopy (fURS).
methodsA systematic search across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (from inception to February 2025) identified studies comparing FANS-UAS and T-UAS. Included were RCTs and observational studies with ≥ 20 patients. Outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs), operative time, hospital stay, and complications. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad Scale for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies.
resultsEight studies (1 RCT, 7 observational; 1,816 patients: 866 FANS-UAS, 950 T-UAS) were analyzed. Compared to T-UAS, FANS-UAS demonstrated significantly higher stone-free rates (SFRs) at both postoperative day 1 (OR = 4.01, 95% CI: 1.98-8.11) and 30-day follow-up (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.62-3.46). FANS-UAS was associated with a lower risk of postoperative fever (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.47). Operative time trended longer with FANS-UAS (MD = 2.64 min, 95% CI: -2.56 to 7.84; p = 0.32), though without statistical significance, while hospital stay showed no difference between groups (MD = - 0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.01; p = 0.1).
conclusionFANS-UAS provides superior stone clearance and reduced complications versus T-UAS, with only slightly longer operative time. The integrated suction system enables these advantages through improved fragment removal and pressure control. Further RCTs should confirm these benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.