Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Randomized trial demonstrates higher stone-free rates with flexible suction ureteral sheaths during kidney stone surgery, indicating improved clearance despite longer operative times.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS-UAS) against the conventional ureteral access sheath (CUAS) in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Materials and Methods: A total of 161 patients who underwent RIRS at seven centers using similar surgical methods (thulium fiber laser and 7.5 F disposable flexible ureterorenoscope) were prospectively enrolled in the study between May 2024 and September 2025. The patients were randomized into two groups based on the use of UAS (Group 1: CUAS; Group 2: FANS-UAS). Demographic and clinical data of the patients, stone characteristics, surgical data, perioperative and postoperative complications, duration of hospitalization, and stone-free rates (SFRs) were analyzed for comparison. Results: Of the 161 patients included in the study, 79 received a CUAS and 82 received a FANS-UAS. The groups were demographically similar ( p > 0.05). The postoperative SFR at 1 month was statistically significantly higher in the FANS-UAS group (79.3% vs 63.3%, p = 0.041), and the operative time was shorter in the CUAS group ( p = 0.011). The perioperative bleeding rate was higher in the FANS-UAS group ( p = 0.034), although there was no significant difference in postoperative hemoglobin decrease. No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of postoperative complications ( p = 0.162). Conclusion: The FANS-UAS is an effective method that increases SFR compared to the CUAS. Although the FANS-UAS prolongs operation time and increases perioperative bleeding, both FANS-UAS and the CUAS are similarly safe in terms of postoperative complications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Şahin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: