Randomized trial compares stone-free rates in renal stone surgery using two access techniques, suggesting no significant difference.
Objectives To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Flexible and Navigable Suction Sheath (FANS) in comparison with the traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for cases with a single renal stone ≤ 20 mm.Methods A total of 140 cases presenting with single renal stones ≤ 20 mm were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either treatment in FANS group or T-UAS group. The primary endpoint was clinically acceptable stone-free status, defined as residual fragments ≤ 4 mm on 1-month non-contrast computed tomography. True stone-free status, defined as no residual fragments, was analyzed as a secondary endpoint, together with operative time and postoperative complications.Results Baseline characteristics and mean stone size were comparable between both groups (14.8 ± 3.0 in FANS vs. 15.40 ± 3.20 in traditional group). Clinically acceptable stone-free status at 1 month did not substantially differ between FANS and T-UAS groups (82.9% vs. 77.1%; p = 0.398). True stone-free status was also comparable between groups (77.1% vs. 71.4%; p = 0.742). Operative time was comparable between groups (52 ± 7 in FANS group vs. 54 ± 12 min in T-UAS group; p = 0.102). Postoperative complications were comparable between FANS and T-UAS groups (11.4% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.614). Although FANS demonstrated a numerically higher SFR and fewer secondary procedures, these variations were not statistically significant.Conclusions In patients undergoing RIRS for single renal stones ≤ 20 mm, FANS did not demonstrate superiority over T-UAS in terms of stone-free rate, operative time, or complication rates. While FANS remains a safe and feasible technique, its incremental clinical benefit in low stone burden appears limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Higazy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: