Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41554913›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2026

How do we choose the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): an EAU endourology and AUSET prospective multicenter analysis.

Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Daniele Castellani, Albert El Hajj, Bokye Soebhali, Deepak Ragoori, Khi Yung Fong, Chu Ann Chai, Chinnakhet Ketsuwan, Geavlete Petrisor, Mehmet Ilker Gokce and 15 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in World 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

25 authors.

Steffi Kar Kei YuenS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. steffiyuen@surgery.cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9956-1558
Daniele CastellaniEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
Albert El HajjDepartment of Urology, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon.
Bokye SoebhaliDepartment of Urology, Abdul Wahab Sjahranie Hospital Medical Faculty, Muliawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.
Deepak RagooriDepartment of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology & Urology, Irram Manzil Colony, Telangana, Hyderabad, India.
Khi Yung FongDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Chu Ann ChaiDepartment of Surgery, Urology Unit, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8915-3617
Chinnakhet KetsuwanDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, 10400, Bangkok, Thailand.
Geavlete PetrisorDepartment of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Mehmet Ilker GokceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Karl TanDepartment of Urology, Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Jia-Lun KwokEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-6225
Yi Quan TanDepartment of Urology, National University Hospital, 1E Kent Ridge Road, Tower Block, Level 8, 119228, Singapore, Singapore.
Kremena PetkovaDepartment of Urology and Nephrology, Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Palaniappan SundaramDepartment of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Lazaros Tzelves2nd Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Yadong LuDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Vigen MalkhasyanDepartment of Urology, Moscow Urology Center, Botkin Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
Nariman GadzhievDepartment of Urology, Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Wissam KamalUrology Unit, King Fahd General Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Luis RicoEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9354-3570
Pablo ConterasEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Giacomo Maria PirolaIRCCS Multimedica, Ospedale San Giuseppe, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-8670
Bhaskar SomaniEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478
Vineet GauharEuropean Association of Urology Section of Endourology (ESEUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3740-7141

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate how to assess the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) to be used during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for kidney stones.

methodsA prospective multicenter study (16 centers, July 2024–January 2025) enrolled 226 adults with normal renal anatomy undergoing FURS with FANS for renal stones. Three preoperative measurements were analyzed: (1) Subjective on X-ray: T12–pubic symphysis, (2) Objective on CT: upper pole–pubic symphysis, and (3) Dynamic ureteral catheter length with retrograde pyelogram (RPG): upper pole–urethral meatus. Sheath length appropriateness (too short/correct/too long) was assessed intraoperatively using predefined criteria (complete calyceal access, ergonomics, need for ancillary techniques). Secondary outcomes included 30-day stone-free rates (SFR) and complications.

resultsSheath length was deemed correct in 63.7%, too short in 9.7%, and too long in 26.5% of cases. For both genders, dynamic measurement of ureteric catheter length from upper pole calyx to 5 cm beyond the urethral meatus demonstrated the strongest correlation with optimal length (R = 0.7). Gender-specific formulas for optimal FANS length were derived: Male: 0.52 × ureteral catheter length + 26 cm. Female: 1.2 × ureteral catheter length − 2.1 cm. Compensatory techniques for length discrepancies included assistant-held stabilization of FANS (28.3%) and telescoping of penis (3.5%). 96% of sheaths accessed all calyces. The 30-day SFR was 92.5% (Grade A: 79.2% zero fragments; Grade B: 13.3% fragments ≤ 2 mm). Complications were low: sepsis not requiring ICU admission (0.4%) and ureteric stricture (0.6%). Only 2.7% patients were planned for reintervention.

conclusionThe selection of an optimal FANS length is critical for optimizing outcomes in FURS. Dynamic RPG-ureteral catheter length measurement best predicts this, enabling gender-specific formulas for easy estimation. Our results provide valuable insights into the clinical relevance of preoperative measurements, intraoperative adjustments, and the impact of sheath length on procedural success and complications.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyAdultAgedEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSuctionUreterFANSFlexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheathFlexible ureteroscopyKidney stonesLengthUreter

Identifiers

PMID41554913
PMCPMC12815969

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.