ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Bendable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Conventional Ureteral Access Sheath in Management of Renal Stones Using Flexible Ureteroscopy
Urinary calculus is a globally recognized urological condition, with prevalence rates ranging from 1% to 13% across different geographical regions (1) Therapeutic approaches for renal calculi encompass extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and minimally invasive endoscopic surgical techniques, such as percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Treatment plans depend on the characteristics of calculi, patient factors, surgeon experience and the condition of medical centers. According to the guidelines of American Urologic Association (AUA) and European Association of Urology (EAU), patients with a burden of less than 20 mm in kidney calculi can choose RIRS as the frst-line surgical treatment with good stone-free rate (SFR). (2, 3) The application of RIRS for urinary stones has increased signifcantly, and the indications have expanded due to developments in minimally invasive technology and equipment. (4) With the development of stone retrieval devices and miniaturized fexible ureteroscopes, RIRS is more widely used for treating renal calculi, even for high burden stones. (5, 6) The application of ureteral access sheath (UAS) in RIRS can improve surgical vision, reduce intrarenal pressure (IRP), and decrease postoperative infectious complications. (7-9) Several reports have demonstrated the superiority of suctioning UAS, including shorter operation time, higher SFR and lower incidence of infectious complications compared with traditional ureteral access sheath, but none of these suctioning UAS can reach the renal calyces. (10-12) A novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath with flexible terminal was designed, which delivered the tip of the ureteral access sheath to renal calyces. However, data comparing novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access and traditional ureteral access sheath is lacking in RIRS. Therefore, we designed a prospective controlled analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of novel tip-flex
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Ultra-Mini Versus Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy For Management Of Renal Calculi. A Randomized Controlled Trial.#828538
- ESWL vs Flexible Uretroscopy in Management of Upper Ureteric Stones a Prospective Randomized Study#874979
- Flexible Ureteroscopy Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Treatment of Renal Stones#803335
- Prospective Assessment of Procedure-Related and Patient-Reported Outcomes After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) for Renal Calculi Less Than 20 mm#810121
- Efficacy and Safety of Flexible Ureteroscopy With Flexible Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy With Vacuum-Assisted Access Sheath#872163
Record · ID 916170
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive