ArticleUrology research & practice2026
Comparison of Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteric Access Sheath in RIRS: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Urology research & practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) versus conventional ureteric access sheath (C-UAS) in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) for renal stone disease through meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The FANS technology has emerged as a potential solution, incorporating active suction mechanisms to enhance stone clearance and visualization.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Scopus were searched from 2000 to June 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies comparing FANS vs. C-UAS in adult RIRS. The primary outcome was stone-free rates at various time points; secondary outcomes included complications, operative, and recovery parameters. The risk of bias was assessed, and random-effects meta-analyses with subgroup, meta-regression, TSA, and Bayesian modeling were performed.
resultsFifteen studies comprising 11 RCTs and 4 observational studies with 3030 participants were included. Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath achieved a significantly higher immediate stone-free rate (79.1% vs. 54.5%; Relative Risk (RR): 1.47, 95% CI: 1.23-1.7; P < .001). Significant heterogeneity was noted (I2 = 89.3%). The absolute risk difference was 24.6% (number needed to treat = 6). Stone-free rates favored FANS at 30 days (93.5% vs. 82.7%; RR = 1.13) and 3 months (96.2% vs. 88.4%; RR = 1.09), both statistically significant. Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath reduced overall complications by 52% (9.7% vs. 20.2%). Benefits were greatest for stones >20 mm (RR = 2.14), density ≥1000 HU (RR = 1.94), and non-pre-stented patients (RR = 1.37). Trial sequential analysis (3030 patients; 106.4% information size) confirmed FANS superiority. Machine learning prediction of stone-free success showed high accuracy (Area Under the ROC Curve [AUC] = 0.89).
conclusionFlexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath shows clear superiority, improving immediate stone-free rates by 47% with notable safety benefits, TSA confirms evidence sufficiency. Cite this article as: Mittal A, Subramanyam AD, Panwar VK, Malhotra K, et al. Comparison of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath versus conventional ureteric access sheath in RIRS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Res Pract. 2026, 52, 0119, doi:10.5152/tud.2026.25119.
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.