ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
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.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Intrarenal pressure and clinical outcomes during suction-assisted versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- In vitro performance of the Vortex Intelligent Stone Optimized Removal (VISOR) system versus the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) on stone clearance efficiency and intrarenal pressure control.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Uncomplicated Single-Session Stone-Free Status After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Large Renal Stones.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Parameter mapping for the use of flexible and navigable suction sheath: an in vitro study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Is 3 cm the upper limit of stone size for effective steerable ureteroscopic renal stone evacuation?World journal of urology · 2026Observational
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the two suction technologies, namely suction mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SM-PCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy using flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) for renal stone management.
methodsPropensity-matched pair analysis was conducted on prospectively collected data from two global registries. The Suction mini-PCNL registry (STUMPS) included 30 centers across 21 countries, and the Flexible and Navigable Suction Access Sheath in Ureteroscopy registry (FANS) involved 25 centers across 20 countries. Each group included 686 patients after matching for age, sex, Guy's stone score, and stone volume. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate (SFR), assessed by 30-day non-contrast CT scan, categorized as Grade A (100% clearance or zero residual fragment, ZRF), Grade B (single ≤ 4 mm residual fragment), or Grade C (any fragment > 4 mm or multiple fragments).
resultsIn the matched cohort, immediate ZRF was significantly higher in SM-PCNL (85.7% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.001), and reinterventions were fewer (0.9% vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001). FANS demonstrated significantly superior recovery profiles with lower postoperative pain scores (VAS 1.0 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stays (1.0 vs. 2.0 days, p < 0.001), and reduced need for basket extraction (9.5% vs. 24.5%, p < 0.001). Operative time difference of 6 min, favoring SM-PCNL was noted (46 vs. 40 min, p < 0.001). Complication rates were low and comparable: fever managed by observation (2.1% FANS vs. 3.2% SM-PCNL, p = 0.29) or antibiotics (3.1% FANS vs. 6.0% SM-PCNL, p = 0.08), blood transfusion (0.1% FANS vs. 0.3% SM-PCNL, p > 0.99). No sepsis case was reported for both modalities. Multivariable analysis identified SM-PCNL as a significant independent predictor of Grade A stone-free status (OR 4.06, 95% CI 3.06-5.43, p < 0.001). Notably higher stone complexity GSS 2 and 3 had significantly better predictive odds of lower SFR than stone volume. Stone volume was a predictor of any complications (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.30, p = 0.01).
conclusionsBoth techniques are safe and effective; SM-PCNL is better for achieving 100% stone clearance, especially in GSS 2 and 3 cases. FANS offers faster recovery and lower postoperative pain scores. The Guy's stone score is useful to predict 100% SFR for both modalities. Even though the proposed re-intervention rate was higher in FANS, as ours is only a 30-day follow-up study, the true reintervention rate and outcomes are lacking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41160140What 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.