How do we choose the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): an EAU endourology and AUSET prospective multicenter analysis

dc.contributor.authorYuen S.K.K.
dc.contributor.authorCastellani D.
dc.contributor.authorEl Hajj A.
dc.contributor.authorSoebhali B.
dc.contributor.authorRagoori D.
dc.contributor.authorFong K.Y.
dc.contributor.authorChai C.A.
dc.contributor.authorKetsuwan C.
dc.contributor.authorPetrisor G.
dc.contributor.authorGokce M.I.
dc.contributor.authorTan K.
dc.contributor.authorKwok J.L.
dc.contributor.authorTan Y.Q.
dc.contributor.authorPetkova K.
dc.contributor.authorSundaram P.
dc.contributor.authorTzelves L.
dc.contributor.authorLu Y.
dc.contributor.authorMalkhasyan V.
dc.contributor.authorGadzhiev N.
dc.contributor.authorKamal W.
dc.contributor.authorRico L.
dc.contributor.authorConteras P.
dc.contributor.authorPirola G.M.
dc.contributor.authorSomani B.
dc.contributor.authorGauhar V.
dc.contributor.correspondenceYuen S.K.K.
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-06T18:11:23Z
dc.date.available2026-02-06T18:11:23Z
dc.date.issued2026-12-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate how to assess the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS) to be used during flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) for kidney stones. Methods: A prospective multicenter study (16 centers, July 2024–January 2025) enrolled 226 adults with normal renal anatomy undergoing FURS with FANS for renal stones. Three preoperative measurements were analyzed: (1) Subjective on X-ray: T12–pubic symphysis, (2) Objective on CT: upper pole–pubic symphysis, and (3) Dynamic ureteral catheter length with retrograde pyelogram (RPG): upper pole–urethral meatus. Sheath length appropriateness (too short/correct/too long) was assessed intraoperatively using predefined criteria (complete calyceal access, ergonomics, need for ancillary techniques). Secondary outcomes included 30-day stone-free rates (SFR) and complications. Results: Sheath length was deemed correct in 63.7%, too short in 9.7%, and too long in 26.5% of cases. For both genders, dynamic measurement of ureteric catheter length from upper pole calyx to 5 cm beyond the urethral meatus demonstrated the strongest correlation with optimal length (R = 0.7). Gender-specific formulas for optimal FANS length were derived: Male: 0.52 × ureteral catheter length + 26 cm. Female: 1.2 × ureteral catheter length − 2.1 cm. Compensatory techniques for length discrepancies included assistant-held stabilization of FANS (28.3%) and telescoping of penis (3.5%). 96% of sheaths accessed all calyces. The 30-day SFR was 92.5% (Grade A: 79.2% zero fragments; Grade B: 13.3% fragments ≤ 2 mm). Complications were low: sepsis not requiring ICU admission (0.4%) and ureteric stricture (0.6%). Only 2.7% patients were planned for reintervention. Conclusion: The selection of an optimal FANS length is critical for optimizing outcomes in FURS. Dynamic RPG-ureteral catheter length measurement best predicts this, enabling gender-specific formulas for easy estimation. Our results provide valuable insights into the clinical relevance of preoperative measurements, intraoperative adjustments, and the impact of sheath length on procedural success and complications.
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Urology Vol.44 No.1 (2026)
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-026-06200-y
dc.identifier.eissn14338726
dc.identifier.issn07244983
dc.identifier.pmid41554913
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105027820952
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/114392
dc.rights.holderSCOPUS
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.titleHow do we choose the optimal length of flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheaths (FANS): an EAU endourology and AUSET prospective multicenter analysis
dc.typeArticle
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=105027820952&origin=inward
oaire.citation.issue1
oaire.citation.titleWorld Journal of Urology
oaire.citation.volume44
oairecerif.author.affiliationChinese University of Hong Kong
oairecerif.author.affiliationNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversiti Malaya
oairecerif.author.affiliationAnkara Üniversitesi
oairecerif.author.affiliationAmerican University of Beirut
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversitatea de Medicina si Farmacie Carol Davila din Bucuresti
oairecerif.author.affiliationSingapore General Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationNational University Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust
oairecerif.author.affiliationTan Tock Seng Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona
oairecerif.author.affiliationFaculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University
oairecerif.author.affiliationNational Cancer Centre, Singapore
oairecerif.author.affiliationHospital Aleman
oairecerif.author.affiliationSengkang General Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationMilitary Medical Academy, Sofia
oairecerif.author.affiliationKing Fahd General Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationEuropean Association of Urology
oairecerif.author.affiliationSaint-Petersburg State University Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationOspedale San Giuseppe, Milano
oairecerif.author.affiliationNg Teng Fong General Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliation“Sf. Ioan” Clinical Emergency Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationBotkin Hospital
oairecerif.author.affiliationVeterans Memorial Medical Center
oairecerif.author.affiliationMuliawarman University
oairecerif.author.affiliationAsian Institute of Nephrology & Urology
oairecerif.author.affiliationAsian Institute of Nephrourology

Files

Collections