Evidence Hub

Efficacy and Safety of 6.3 Fr Versus 7.5 Fr Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscopes for Upper Urinary Tract Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A. Alharran, Saad A. Alajmi, Ali A. Hussain, M. Alajmi, Sayed Hashim, Layal T. Alwazzan, H. Alaradi

Medicina, 2025

140 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is a cornerstone in managing upper urinary tract stones, with a growing trend towards instrument miniaturization. The introduction of the ultra-slim 6.3 Fr single-use flexible ureteroscope presents a potential advancement over the standard 7.5 Fr device, but clinical evidence remains scarce. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of the 6.3 Fr versus the 7.5 Fr ureteroscope. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, CENTRAL, and Web of Science was conducted for RCTs published up to September 2025. The primary outcomes were the stone-free rate and procedural success rate. Secondary outcomes included operation duration and postoperative complications. Risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were pooled for analysis. Results: Three RCTs involving 140 patients were included. There was no significant difference between both groups in stone-free rates (RR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.96, 1.18], p = 0.22) or success rates (RR: 1.06, 95% CI [0.97, 1.16], p = 0.17). However, the 6.3 Fr ureteroscope was associated with a significantly shorter operation duration (MD: −6.66 min, 95% CI [−11.29, −2.03], p < 0.001). No significant differences were found in laser operating time (MD: −1.46 min, 95% CI [−3.93, 1.01], p = 0.25), length of…

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: 140 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