MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410508758 · doi:10.1186/s12894-025-01817-4

Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional ureteral access sheath for flexible ureteroscopy in renal and proximal ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

2025· review· en· W4410508758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Urology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUreteroscopyUrologyUreterSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Traditional ureteral access sheaths (T-UAS) are limited by rigidity and lack of suction, potentially increasing complications. Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS-UAS) offer improved maneuverability and active suction, but comparative evidence on their efficacy and safety is scarce. This meta-analysis evaluates FANS-UAS versus T-UAS in flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). METHODS: A systematic search across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (from inception to February 2025) identified studies comparing FANS-UAS and T-UAS. Included were RCTs and observational studies with ≥ 20 patients. Outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs), operative time, hospital stay, and complications. Study quality was assessed using the Jadad Scale for RCTs and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. RESULTS: Eight studies (1 RCT, 7 observational; 1,816 patients: 866 FANS-UAS, 950 T-UAS) were analyzed. Compared to T-UAS, FANS-UAS demonstrated significantly higher stone-free rates (SFRs) at both postoperative day 1 (OR = 4.01, 95% CI: 1.98-8.11) and 30-day follow-up (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.62-3.46). FANS-UAS was associated with a lower risk of postoperative fever (OR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.21-0.47). Operative time trended longer with FANS-UAS (MD = 2.64 min, 95% CI: -2.56 to 7.84; p = 0.32), though without statistical significance, while hospital stay showed no difference between groups (MD = - 0.07 days, 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.01; p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: FANS-UAS provides superior stone clearance and reduced complications versus T-UAS, with only slightly longer operative time. The integrated suction system enables these advantages through improved fragment removal and pressure control. Further RCTs should confirm these benefits.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.279
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it