Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41323007›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

The Role of Suction in Ureteroscopy: A Narrative Review.

Vyshnavi Sathish

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Vyshnavi SathishUrology, Peninsula Deanery, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, GBR.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kidney stone disease is a prevalent urological condition, affecting at least one in 10 individuals. The rising incidence of urolithiasis represents a significant burden on the National Health Service (NHS) and has driven major advances in endourology, including the use of flexible ureteroscopes (F-URS), high-efficiency laser fibres and techniques. Despite these advances, retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) still has complications such as residual fragments and infection risk. Whilst suction technology has been utilised in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for over 25 years, its use in RIRS is new. This narrative review evaluates the safety and clinical efficacy of suction-assisted ureteroscopy (URS) in the management of kidney stones. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar for studies published between January 2015 and October 2025, using the keywords 'suction', 'ureteroscopy', 'URS', 'F-URS', 'kidney stones', 'FANS,' 'flexible and navigation suction sheaths', 'suction urethral access sheaths', 'SUAS', 'direct-in-scope suction', 'DISS' and 'ureterorenoscopy'. Suction-assisted URS reduces intrarenal pressure and operative time and improves visibility. Suction urethral access sheaths (SUAS) enhance stone clearance rate (stone-free rate (SFR)) and reduce post-operative complications. Flexible and navigation suction sheaths (FANS) integrate a continuous suction mechanism with a flexible tip scope, further reducing post-operative fever and improving SFR. Direct in-scope suction (DISS) allows synchronous irrigation and suction via dual lumen designs, facilitating the efficient removal of larger stones. Despite encouraging outcomes, suction systems introduce additional procedural complexities. There remains a lack of standardised protocols and robust randomised controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing different suction systems. Further multi-centre RCTs are warranted to establish best practice clinical guidelines for the safe and effective use of suction in modern endourology.

Indexed as

kidney stonessuctionureterorenoscopyureteroscopyurs

Identifiers

PMID41323007
PMCPMC12664323

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.