Evidence Hub

A comparative analysis of flexible ureteroscopy with a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Baian Wei, Zhen-Lang Guo, Yan Yu, Shu Gan, Zhaohui Wang, Zunguang Bai, Xin-Feng Guo, Junwei He

International Journal of Surgery, 2025

2,481 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical approach for treating upper urinary tract stones remains debated.Historically, percutaneous nephrolithotomy has been regarded as the first-line intervention for renal stones exceeding 2 cm. With the emergence of the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath, however, flexible ureteroscopy appears to have extended its utility to the management of larger renal calculi. In light of this paradigm shift, the present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of FANS-assisted flexible ureteroscopy (FANS-fURS) versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases from 2015 to 2025. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing FANS-fURS with mPCNL for upper urinary tract stone treatment were included due to limited RCT availability. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFR) at different time points. Secondary outcomes included operative time, hospital stay, hemoglobin decline, and complications.

RESULTS

Ten studies comprising 2,481 patients (1,231 FANS-fURS, 1,250 mPCNL) were included. The results showed that mPCNL had a significantly higher immediate stone-free rate (SFR) compared with FANS-fURS, while the final SFR was comparable between the two groups. Additionally, the FANS-fURS group exhibited a significantly smaller decline in hemoglobin levels, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) ranging…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,481 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free