Table 1 Basic information of included studies
ID | Authour | Data collection duration | Country | Intervention | Control | Kidney Anatomy | Findings on stone size | Postoperative Stenting use | Age Intervention (mean ± SD) | BMI Intervention (mean ± SD) | Age Control (mean ± SD) | BMI Control (mean ± SD) | Intervention sample size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Huang (2023) [18] | 2022–2023 | China | vacuum-assisted dedusting lithotripsy (VADL) using flexible vacuumassisted ureteral access sheath (FV-UAS) | traditional flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL) | Only normal kidneys | FV-UAS improved SFR for both ≤ 2 cm and 2–3 cm stones | No mention; FV-UAS may reduce the need for stenting | 54.7 ± 10.70 | 26.5 ± 4.9 | 54.5 ± 11.0 | 26.3 ± 4.2 | 206 |
2 | Chen (2024) [19] | 2019–2023 | China | tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (TFS-UAS) plus disposable flexible ureteroscope (DFU) | traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) plus disposable flexible ureteroscope (DFU) | Only normal kidneys | Compared TFS-UAS vs. T-UAS for stones ranging from 1 to 3 cm in size but no analysis on stone size | F5 double-J stent placed postoperatively in all patients | 45.62 ± 12.93 | 25.21 ± 3.77 | 46.35 ± 14.88 | 25.66 ± 4.35 | 238 |
3 | Cui (2024) [20] | 2022–2023 | China | bendable flexible ureteral access sheath (FUAS) combined with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) | intelligent intrarenal pressure control platforms (IPCP) | Only normal kidneys | FANS-UAS had higher SFR for stones ≥ 15 mm | Stenting not explicitly mentioned; pre-op stenting was an exclusion criterion | 55.0 ± 13.34 | 24.29 ± 2.88 | 53.5 ± 13.6 | 23.45 ± 3.03 | 99 |
4 | Ding (2023) [21] | 2022–2023 | China | omnidirectional (OD) ureteral access sheath (UAS) | conventional Cook UAS | Not specified | OD-UAS had better SFR for larger stones (> 15 mm) but no direct volume analysis | Stent removal was required for follow-up, implying stenting was performed | 57.6 ± 13.7 | 24.6 ± 3.2 | 55.7 ± 13.1 | 24.0 ± 2.6 | 199 |
5 | Ong (2024) [22] | 2022–2023 | Multicenter (Singapore, United Kingdom, Canada, Saudi Arabia, India, Indonesia, Russia, Hong Kong, Italy, France) | flexible and navigable suction UAS (FANS) | traditional suction ureteral access sheath (SUAS) | Not specified | FANS-UAS showed higher SFR, particularly for larger stones | No mention of stenting in outcome measures | 52.0 ± 20.01 | - | 54.7 ± 10.70 | 26.5 ± 4.9 | 90 |
6 | Yu (2024) [23] | 2022–2022 | China | Flexible UAS | Traditional UAS | Only normal kidneys | f-UAS had better outcomes for stones > 15 mm but no volume-based analysis | No mention of postoperative stenting | 51.1 ± 12.2 | 24.3 ± 2.8 | 54.7 ± 10.70 | 26.5 ± 4.9 | 304 |
7 | Zhang (2023) [24] | 2021–2022 | China | tip-flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath (NTFS-UAS) | traditional ureteral access sheath (T-UAS) | Only normal kidneys | NTFS-UAS had higher SFR for stones > 20 mm | No specific mention of stenting post-surgery | 47.69 ± 9.18 | 24.25 ± 2.97 | 54.7 ± 10.70 | 26.5 ± 4.9 | 214 |
8 | Zhu (2024) [25] | 2023–2024 | multicenter (china, turkey, Malaysia, Philippines) | S-UAS, tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath | Traditional UAS | Only normal kidneys | S-UAS had higher SFR for all stone sizes, especially ≥ 20 mm | No explicit mention of stenting | 53.0 ± 14.08 | 24.8 ± 3.04 | 54.7 ± 10.70 | 26.5 ± 4.9 | 320 |