Endoscopic innovation has played a pivotal role in advancing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Integration of aspiration technology into flexible ureteroscopes (fURS), termed direct in-scope suction (DISS), and into ureteral access sheaths (s-UAS) are the most recent and rapidly progressing advancements. Aspiration technologies aim to augment stone-free rates (SFR) associated with traditional RIRS and may provide an alternative to retrograde management of large calculi typically managed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This systematic and narrative review aims to consolidate the current evidence on aspiration devices used in RIRS.
Methods:
Using the Covidence platform, a literature search was conducted including the PubMed and Web of Science databases from inception to October 2024. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024613059). Studies were categorized based on level of evidence and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparative observational studies, and large-scale prospective studies; papers were excluded due to expired technology or absence of a traditional fURS comparator group.
Results:
Literature search yielded 232 articles. Following exclusion and manual review, 11 studies (1 RCT, 8 comparative cohort studies, and 2 large-scale observational studies) were selected for analysis. Assessing level 1 evidence, immediate and final SFRs were significantly higher in s-UAS groups. S-UAS was also superior to traditional fURS in achieving superior SFR for the management of renal calculi with level 3 evidence.
Conclusion:
Early studies utilizing contemporary aspiration technologies demonstrated superior efficacy and efficiency with respect to immediate SFR and operative times in patients undergoing fURS for renal stones between 1 and 2 cm compared with traditional fURS. Future studies adhering to standardized SFR criteria with postoperative thin-slice (2 mm) noncontrast computed tomography scanning is warranted to more precisely assess the effectiveness of aspiration technology-associated SFR values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RamaiD, ZakhiaK, EtienneD, et al.Philipp Bozzini (1773–1809): The earliest description of endoscopy. J Med Biogr, 2018; 26(2):137–141; doi: 10.1177/0967772018755587
2.
HerrHW. Max Nitze, the cystoscope and urology. J Urol, 2006; 176(4 Pt 1):1313–1316; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.085
3.
LinderTE, SimmenD, StoolSE. Revolutionary inventions in the 20th century. The history of endoscopy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 1997; 123(11):1161–1163; doi: 10.1001/archotol.1997.01900110011001
4.
TefekliA, CezayirliF. The history of urinary stones: In parallel with civilization. ScientificWorldJournal, 2013; 2013:423964; doi: 10.1155/2013/423964
5.
WoodhouseCRJ, FarrellCR, ParisAMI, et al.The place of extended pyelolithotomy (Gil-Vernet Operation) in the management of renal staghorn calcuii. Br J Urol, 1981; 53(6):520–523; doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.1981.tb03252.x
AsoY, OhtawaraY, FukutaK, et al.Operative fiberoptic nephroureteroscopy: Removal of upper ureteral and renal calculi. J Urol, 1987; 137(4):629–632; doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)44159-0
13.
PsihramisKE, BuckspanMB. Laser lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral calculi. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J, 1990; 142(8):833–835.
14.
VentimigliaE, TraxerO. What is moses effect: A historical perspective. J Endourol, 2019; 33(5):353–357; doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0012
15.
DenstedtJ, Gabrigna BertoFC. Thulium fiber laser lithotripsy: Is it living up to the hype? Asian J Urol, 2023; 10(3):289–297; doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2022.11.003
16.
HardyLA, VinnichenkoV, FriedNM. High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: Ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers Surg Med, 2019; 51(6):522–530; doi: 10.1002/lsm.23057
17.
ButcherNJ, MonsourA, MewEJ, et al.Guidelines for reporting outcomes in trial reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. JAMA, 2022; 328(22):2252–2264; doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.21022
18.
RashidR, SohrabiC, KerwanA, et al.The STROCSS 2024 guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case–control studies in surgery. Int J Surg, 2024; 110(6):3151–3165; doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001268
19.
GauharV, TraxerO, CastellaniD, et al.Could use of a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath be a potential game-changer 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(6):975–982; doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2024.05.010
20.
QianX, LiuC, HongS, 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; doi: 10.1155/2022/9354714
21.
ZhuZ, CuiY, ZengF, et al.Comparison of suctioning and traditional ureteral access sheath during flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of renal stones. World J Urol, 2019; 37(5):921–929; doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2455-8
22.
ChenH, XiaoJ, GeJ, et al.Clinical efficacy analysis of tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope to treat 2-4 cm renal stones. Int Urol Nephrol, 2024; 56(10):3193–3199; doi: 10.1007/s11255-024-04072-y
23.
ChenH, QiuX, DuC, et al.The comparison study of flexible ureteroscopic suctioning lithotripsy with intelligent pressure control versus minimally invasive percutaneous suctioning nephrolithotomy in treating renal calculi of 2 to 3 cm in size. Surg Innov, 2019; 26(5):528–535; doi: 10.1177/1553350619849782
24.
WangL, ZhouZ, GaoP, 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(1):81; doi: 10.1007/s00423-024-03275-2
25.
ZhuW, LiuS, CaoJ, 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; doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102724
26.
LiuS, DaiY, JiangF, et al.The association between novel negative pressure ureteroscopic lithotripsy combined with flexible ureteroscopy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy on stone-free rates: Implications for clinical practice and policy. Urolithiasis, 2024; 52(1):140; doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01645-5
27.
ZhangZ, XieT, LiF, et al.Comparison of traditional and novel tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscope to treat unilateral renal calculi. World J Urol, 2023; 41(12):3619–3627; doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04648-w
28.
HuangW-N, HuangH-L, WangY-H, et al.Application of 11/13Fr suctioning ureteral access sheath and 8.55Fr single-use digital flexible ureteroscope in one-stage flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: An initial experience of 900 cases. Urolithiasis, 2024; 52(1):112; doi: 10.1007/s00240-024-01607-x
29.
ErkocM, BozkurtM, SezginMA, et al.Efficacy of aspiration-assisted ureteral access sheath (ClearPETRA) in retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A, 2024; 34(5):420–424; doi: 10.1089/lap.2024.0076
30.
CorralesM, SierraA, TraxerO. Moses and Moses 2.0 for laser lithotripsy: Expectations vs. reality. J Clin Med, 2022; 11(16):4828; doi: 10.3390/jcm11164828
31.
RicoL, ContrerasP, BlasL, et al.Dusting efficacy between the regular setting of holmium laser (Ho:YAG) versus Vapor Tunnel pulse modality for non-complex kidney stones. Lasers Med Sci, 2023; 38(1):168; doi: 10.1007/s10103-023-03828-9
32.
NikoufarP, HodhodA, FathyM, et al.Thulium fiber laser vs pulse-modulated holmium MOSES laser in flexible ureteroscopy for the management of kidney stones: A single-center retrospective analysis. J Endourol, 2023; 37(10):1081–1087; doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0284
33.
JiangP, OkhunovZ, AfyouniAS, et al.Comparison of superpulse thulium fiber laser vs holmium laser for ablation of renal calculi in an in vivo porcine model. J Endourol, 2023; 37(3):335–340; doi: 10.1089/end.2022.0445
34.
KellerEX, De ConinckV, DoiziS, et al.Thulium fiber laser: Ready to dust all urinary stone composition types? World J Urol, 2021; 39(6):1693–1698; doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03217-9
35.
KronenbergP, TraxerO. The laser of the future: Reality and expectations about the new thulium fiber laser-a systematic review. Transl Androl Urol, 2019; 8(Suppl 4):S398–S417; doi: 10.2103/7/tau.2019.08.01
36.
ShresthaA, TraxerO, SeitzC, 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(1):41; doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05384-5
37.
YorkNE, ZhengM, ElmansyHM, et al.Stone-free outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi utilizing computed tomography imaging. Urology, 2019; 124:52–56; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.005
38.
ChenH-Q, ChenZ-Y, ZengF, et al.Comparative study of the treatment of 20-30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients. World J Urol, 2018; 36(8):1309–1314; doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2258-y
39.
UlvikØ, HarneshaugJ-R, GjengstøP. What Do We Mean by “Stone Free,” and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy? J Endourol, 2021; 35(7):961–966; doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0933
40.
KingmaRA, DoppenC, BusMTJ, et al.The significance of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An analysis into the relevance of complete stone clearance. World J Urol, 2024; 42(1):78; doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-04774-z
41.
HumphreysMR, ShahOD, MongaM, et al.Dusting versus basketing during ureteroscopy-which technique is more efficacious? a prospective multicenter trial from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol, 2018; 199(5):1272–1276; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.126
42.
GauharV, CastellaniD, ChewBH, et al.Does unenhanced computerized tomography as imaging standard post-retrograde intrarenal surgery paradoxically reduce stone-free rate and increase additional treatment for residual fragments? Outcomes from 5395 patients in the FLEXOR study by the TOWER group. Ther Adv Urol, 2023; 15:17562872231198629; doi: 10.1177/17562872231198629
43.
DretlerSP, SpencerBA. CT and stone fragility. J Endourol, 2001; 15(1):31–36; doi: 10.1089/08927790150500926
44.
AssimosD, KrambeckA, MillerNL, et al.Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, PART I. J Urol, 2016; 196(4):1153–1160; doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
45.
GauharV, SomaniBK, HengCT, et al.Technique, feasibility, utility, limitations, and future perspectives of a new technique of applying direct in-scope suction to improve outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for stones. J Clin Med, 2022; 11(19):5710; doi: 10.3390/jcm11195710
46.
TzelvesL, GeraghtyR, Juliebø‐JonesP, et al.Suction use in ureterorenoscopy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies. BJUI Compass, 2024; 5(10):895–912; doi: 10.1002/bco2.408
47.
WuZ-H, WangY-Z, LiuT-Z, et al.Comparison of vacuum suction ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and traditional ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for impacted upper ureteral stones. World J Urol, 2022; 40(9):2347–2352; doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04075-3
48.
ZhangLW, FeiX, SongY. The clinical efficacy of novel vacuum suction ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral calculi. World J Urol, 2021; 39(11):4261–4265; doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03722-5
49.
LaiL, ZhangW, ZhengF, et al.Comparison of the efficacy of shuotong ureteroscopy and simple flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of unilateral upper ureteral calculi. Front Surg, 2021; 8:707022; doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.707022
50.
SurRL, AgrawalS, EisnerBH, et al.Initial safety and feasibility of steerable ureteroscopic renal evacuation: A novel approach for the treatment of urolithiasis. J Endourol, 2022; 36(9):1161–1167; doi: 10.1089/end.2021.0759
51.
MatlagaBR, MuellerT, JohnsonB, et al.A Prospective, Randomized, Non-inferiority Study to Evaluate the Safety and Effectiveness of Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) Compared to Standard Ureteroscopy (URS): 30 Day Results of the ASPIRE Study. J Endourol, n.d.
52.
NedbalC, YuenSKK, AkramM, et al.First clinical evaluation of a flexible digital ureteroscope with direct in scope suctioning system (Pusen DISS 7.5Ch): Prospective multicentric feasibility study. World J Urol, 2024; 42(1):560; doi: 10.1007/s00345-024-05275-9
53.
SternKL, BorgertBJ, WolfJS. Steerable Ureteroscopic Renal Evacuation (SURE) for large renal stones: A multi-institutional center study. J Endourol, 2023; 37(11):1179–1183; doi: 10.1089/end.2023.0424
YildirimÜ, UsluM, EzerM, et al.Comparison of flexible ureteroscopic suction techniques: Efficacy and safety of Flexible and Navigable Access Sheath (FANS) vs. Direct In-Scope Suction (DISS) in the management of 2–3 cm lower pole renal stones. Urolithiasis, 2025; 53(1):75; doi: 10.1007/s00240-025-01748-7
56.
Health C for D and R. Early Alert: Aspiration System Issue from Calyxo. FDA, 2025.
ChenKW, KooKC, ZhongT, et al.Real time monitoring of intrarenal pressures while using the flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath. World J Urol, 2025; 43(1):76; doi: 10.1007/s00345-025-05444-4
59.
LandmanJ, ClaymanRV, CumpanasAD, et al.Initial clinical experience with a novel robotically assisted platform for combined mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy. J Urol, 2024; 212(3):483–493; doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000004079
60.
JahrreissV, NedbalC, CastellaniD, et al.Is suction the future of endourology? Overview from EAU Section of Urolithiasis. Ther Adv Urol, 2024; 16:17562872241232275; doi: 10.1177/17562872241232275
61.
GauharV, TraxerO, ChoS-Y, et al.Robotic retrograde intrarenal surgery: A journey from “Back to the Future. J Clin Med, 2022; 11(18):5488; doi: 10.3390/jcm11185488
62.
GauharV, TraxerO, CastellaniD, et al.A feasibility study on clinical utility, efficacy and limitations of 2 types of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones. Urology, 2023; 178:173–179; doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.05.032
63.
OngCSH, SomaniBK, ChewBH, et al.Multicentre study comparing outcomes of RIRS using traditional Suction Ureteral Access Sheath (SUAS) and Flexible and Navigable Suction UAS (FANS). J Clin Urol, 2024; 20514158241272717; doi: 10.1177/20514158241272717
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
