https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15504
Safety and efficacy of navigable suction-assisted ureteral access sheath for treatment of kidney stones
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 29 June 2026
Background: The recent innovation of ureteral access sheath (UAS) includes the use of flexible navigable UAS that allows pending into the collecting system and adding suction/evacuation that can improve the efficacy of fragment clearance. This study aimed to report on the experience of using navigable suction-assisted UAS (NS-UAS) for management of kidney stones through a large cohort.
Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted for patients who underwent flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones using navigable NS-UAS between 2022 and 2025 in a tertiary center. Perioperative outcome data regarding efficacy and safety were described. Univariate and multivariate analysis was conducted for risk factors associated with stone-free rate.
Results: The study included 2284 patients with mean (± SD) age of 48 (± 12.5) years. Half of the patients (49.7%) underwent prior ureteric stent placement. The mean (± SD) stone burden was 13.1 (± 3.7) mm. The mean (± SD) operative time was 95.91 (± 25.2) minutes. Stone basketing was required in 11% of patients. Approximately 70% of patients underwent intraoperative stent placement. Stone-free rate (SFR) at 1-month follow-up was 85.8%. A repeat procedure for stone clearance was required in 12% of the patients. The overall complication incidence was 9.6% with only 1.28% incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade III or IV complications. On multivariate analysis, older age (OR = 0.97 [0.96-0.98]), higher stone burden (OR = 0.45 [0.33-0.62]), and intraoperative stent placement (OR = 0.71 [0.54-0.95]) were associated with lower SFR, while the use of basketing (OR = 2.17 [1.33-3.53]) was associated with higher SFR.
Conclusions: NS-UAS can be used safely and effectively in patients with renal stone disease with low rates of complications and a favorable SFR. Stone basketing may still be necessary during NS-UAS to enhance overall SFR.
Downloads
1. Pearle MS, Matlaga BR, Antonelli JA, et al. Surgical Management of Kidney and Ureteral Stones: AUA Guideline (2026) Part I: Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Kidney and/or Ureteral Stones. J Urol. 2026; 215:113-123.
2. Skolarikos A, Geraghty R, Somani B, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2025; 88:64-75.
3. Tzelves L, Geraghty RM, Hughes T, et al. Innovations in Kidney Stone Removal. Res Rep Urol. 2023; 15:131-139.
4. Gauhar V, Traxer O, Castellani D, et al. Could Use of a Flexible and Navigable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Be a Potential Gamechanger in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery? Outcomes at 30 Days from a Large, Prospective, Multicenter, Real-world Study by the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Section. Eur Urol Focus. 2024; 10:975-982.
5. de Amorim LGCR, Campos MEC, Dumont LS, et al. Retrograde intrarenal surgery with or without ureteral access sheath: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int Braz J Urol. 2024; 50:670-682.
6. Elsaqa M, Hyder Z, Thai K, et al. Comparison of commonly utilized ureteral access sheaths: A prospective randomized trial. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2023; 95:11149.
7. Zhu W, Liu S, Cao J, et al. Tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath versus traditional sheath in retrograde intrarenal stone surgery: an international multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study. EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 74:102724.
8. Liang S, Duan X, Liu J, et al. Vacuum-Assisted vs Conventional Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Two-to-Four-Centimeter Stones: A Multicenter Prospective and Randomized Trial. J Endourol. 2023; 37:1241-1247
9. Lai D, Chen M, Sheng M, et al. Use of a Novel Vacuum-AssistedAccess Sheath in Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Feasibility Study. J Endourol. 2020; 34:339-344.
10. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004; 240:205-213.
11. Çavdar OF, Aydin A, Tokas T, et al. Residual stone fragments: systematic review of definitions, diagnostic standards. World J Urol. 2025; 43:194.
12. Macejko A, Okotie OT, Zhao LC, et al. Computed Tomography Determined Stone-Free Rates for Ureteroscopy of Upper-Tract Stones. J Endourol. 2009; 23:379-382.
13. Erkoc M, Bozkurt M, Sezgin MA, et al. Efficacy of Aspiration-Assisted Ureteral Access Sheath (ClearPETRA) in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2024; 34:420-424.
14. Tu WC, Zhang XL, Wang J, et al. Influence of stone load on the outcome of same-session flexible ureteroscopy for bilateral upper urinary tract stones: a multicenter retrospective study. Front Med. 2023; 10:1163371.
15. Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, et al. The Most Reliable Preoperative Assessment of Renal Stone Burden as a Predictor of Stone-free Status After Flexible Ureteroscopy With Holmium Laser Lithotripsy: A Single-center Experience. Urology. 2012; 80:524-528.
16. Law YXT, Teoh JYC, Castellani D, et al. Role of pre-operative ureteral stent on outcomes of retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS): systematic review and meta-analysis of 3831 patients and comparison of Asian and non-Asian cohorts. World J Urol. 2022; 40:1377-1389.
17. Chai CA, Teoh YC, Tailly T, et al. Influence of pre-stenting on RIRS outcomes. Inferences from patients of the Global Multicentre Flexible Ureteroscopy Outcome Registry (FLEXOR). Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2023; 75:493-500.
18. Shrestha A, Traxer O, Seitz C, et al. Assessing flexible ureteroscopy outcomes for lower Pole versus non lower Pole stones using the flexible and navigable suction ureteric access sheath: a prospective multicenter study by EAU Endourology and PEARLS group. World J Urol. 2024; 43:41.
19. Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, et al. Thulium Fibre Laser versus Holmium:YAG for Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: Outcomes from a Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial. Eur Urol. 2022; 82:73-79.
20. Uleri A, Farré A, Izquierdo P, et al. Thulium Fiber Laser Versus Holmium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet for Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2024; 85:529-540.
21. Castellani D, Fong KY, Lim EJ, et al. Comparison Between Holmium:YAG Laser with MOSES Technology vs Thulium Fiber Laser Lithotripsy in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Kidney Stones in Adults: A Propensity Score–matched Analysis From the FLEXible Ureteroscopy Outcomes Registry. J Urol. 2023; 210:323-330.
22. Jung H, Osther PJS. Intraluminal pressure profiles during flexible ureterorenoscopy. SpringerPlus. 2015; 4:373.
23. Qian X, Liu C, Hong S, et al. Application of Suctioning Ureteral Access Sheath during Flexible Ureteroscopy for Renal Stones Decreases the Risk of Postoperative Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome. Int J Clin Pract. 2022; 2022:9354714.
24. Gao X, Zhang Z, Li X, et al. High stone-free rate immediately after suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with Intelligent pressure-control in treating upper urinary tract calculi. BMC Urol. 2022; 22:180.
25. Huang J, Xie D, Xiong R, et al. The Application of Suctioning Flexible Ureteroscopy With Intelligent Pressure Control in Treating Upper Urinary Tract Calculi on Patients With a Solitary Kidney. Urology. 2018; 111:44-47.
26. Zhang LW, Fei X, Song Y. The clinical efficacy of novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi. World J Urol. 2021; 39:4261-4265.
27. Gauhar V, Somani B, Castellani D, et al. The utility of flexible and navigable suction access sheath (FANS) in patients undergoing same session flexible ureteroscopy for bilateral renal calculi: a global prospective multicenter analysis by EAU endourology. World J Urol. 2025; 43:142.
28. Zhu Z, Cui Y, Zeng F, et al. Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones. World J Urol. 2019; 37:921-929.
29. Wang L, Zhou Z, Gao P, et al. Comparison of traditional and suctioning ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal calculi. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2024;409:81.
Ethics Approval
CRediT authorship contribution
Ahmed Rabie: Conceptualization, Data collection, Data analysis, Writing – original draft; Mahmoud Khalil: Critical revision, Supervision; Zachary Dovey: Data analysis, Data analysis; Moustafa Elsawy: Critical revision, Supervision; Ahmed Balah: Methodology, Critical revision, Supervision. Maida Bada: Supervision, Data analysis; Mohamed Jabbo: Critical revision, Supervision; Maurizio Buscarini: Methodology, Critical revision, Supervision; Mohamed Elsaqa: Critical revision, Supervision; Osama Zaytoun: Methodology, Critical revision, Supervision.
Supporting Agencies
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.