Review evaluates intelligent systems for intrarenal pressure monitoring, suggesting improved safety in endourological practices.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Elevated intrarenal pressure (IRP) during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is increasingly recognized as a key driver of infectious and inflammatory complications. Novel devices integrating real-time pressure monitoring and active suction have been developed to address this modifiable risk factor. This review evaluates emerging intelligent pressure-controlled systems and examines whether they represent the future standard in endourological practice. RECENT FINDINGS: Intelligent pressure-controlled ureteral access sheaths (IPC-UAS) and related suction-assisted platforms incorporate continuous IRP sensing with automated feedback mechanisms to maintain renal pelvic pressure within predefined safety thresholds. Observational studies report stone-free rates ranging from 80% to 96%, comparable to or exceeding conventional fURS and, in selected cases, minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Importantly, postoperative fever and sepsis rates appear consistently reduced, with several large series reporting near-zero sepsis incidence. Additional benefits include improved visualization, enhanced fragment clearance, shorter hospitalization, and potential expansion of ureteroscopic indications to larger stones and high-risk populations such as solitary kidneys or infection-prone patients. SUMMARY: Current evidence, although predominantly retrospective, suggests that real-time IRP monitoring and automated pressure control improve safety without compromising efficacy. Standardization of measurement techniques and high-quality randomized trials are required to confirm clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness. Nevertheless, intelligent pressure-regulated systems align with the broader evolution toward data-driven, feedback-controlled endourology and may represent an important step toward safer intrarenal surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tzelves et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: