Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42606608›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2026

Evaluation of perioperative outcomes associated with the flexible ureterorenoscopy with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath and reused disposable scopes: a prospective multicentre study by the European Association of Urology and European Association of Urology Section of Endourology.

Carlo Giulioni, Daniele Castellani, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Khi Yung Fong, Luca Spinozzi, Federico Falsetti, Mohamed Elshazly, Boyke Soebhali, Mohamed Amine Lakmichi, Jia-Lun Kwok and 16 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
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

26 authors.

Carlo GiulioniUrology Unit, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Ancona, Italy. carlo.giulioni9@gmail.com.
Daniele CastellaniEndourology section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Steffi Kar Kei YuenEndourology section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Khi Yung FongDepartment of Urology, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Luca SpinozziUrology Unit, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Ancona, Italy.
Federico FalsettiUrology Unit, Villa Igea Private Hospital, Ancona, Italy.
Mohamed ElshazlyUrology Department, Menoufia University, Shibin el Kom, Egypt.
Boyke SoebhaliDepartment of Urology, Abdul Wahab Sjahranie Hospital Medical Faculty, Muliawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.
Mohamed Amine LakmichiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Mohammed the VIth of Marrakesh, Marrakesh, Morocco.
Jia-Lun KwokDepartment of Urology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Amelia PietropaoloDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Ben Hall ChewDepartment of Urology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Amish MehtaUrology Unit, B T Savani Kidney Hospital, Rajkot, India.
Deepak RagooriDepartment of Urology, Asian Institute of Nephrology & Urology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Nariman GadzhievUrology Unit, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Vigen MalkhasyanUrology Department, Botkin Hospital Moscow, Russian University of Medicine, Moscow, Russian Federation.
Karl TanDepartment of Urology, Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines.
Angelo CormioDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Bhaskar SomaniEndourology section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Dyandra ParieksitUrology Medical Staff Group, Universitas Indonesia Hospital, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia.
Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Horacio SanguinettiDepartment of Urology, Hospital de Clinicas José de San Martin, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abhishek SinghMuljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, India.
Norberto BernardoDepartment of Urology, Hospital de Clinicas Jose de San Martin, 1120, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Esteban Politi VidalUrology Unit, Hospital Central Ramón Carrillo, San Luis, Argentina.
Vineet GauharEndourology section of the European Association of Urology, Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith the increasing adoption of single-use ureteroscopes in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), concerns regarding cost and environmental sustainability have prompted interest in their reuse, giving rise to the concept of reused disposable scopes (RDS). This study evaluates the impact of RDS on perioperative outcomes in RIRS when used in conjunction with novel technologies such as the flexible and navigable suction access sheath (FANS).

methodsThis prospective multicenter study included 607 adult patients undergoing RIRS with RDS across 12 international centers between July 2025 and March 2026. The primary outcomes were stone-free rate (SFR) and perioperative complications. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the number of prior uses and cumulative duration of prior ureteroscope use.

resultsThe median operative time was 60 min, and intraoperative scope failure occurred in 15.0% of cases. The 30-day SFR (Grade A) was 87.5%. Increasing reuse was associated with longer operative times (p < 0.0001) and higher rates of intraoperative scope replacement (6.7% for more than 1 reuse vs. 39.9% for ≥ 4 reuses; p < 0.0001). Similarly, greater cumulative usage duration significantly impacted operative efficiency and failure rates. While postoperative infectious complications and readmissions remained comparable across subgroups, differences in residual fragment rates and SFR distribution were observed between reuse categories.

conclusionsRIRS using FANS is clinically feasible in real-world settings, particularly in centers with appropriate infrastructure and expertise in reprocessing disposable flexible ureteroscopes. Both increasing reuse cycles and prolonged cumulative device usage were associated with progressive technical deterioration, including higher malfunction and intraoperative replacement rates. Re-sterilization beyond 90 min is discouraged.

Indexed as

Disposable EquipmentEquipment ReuseKidney CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyAdultEquipment DesignEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSuctionTreatment OutcomeFlexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheathFlexible ureteroscopyRetrograde intrarenal surgeryReused disposable ureteroscopeUreteroscope durability

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.