Systematic review of ureteral access sheaths: facts and myths.

TLDR: Based on a low level of evidence, UASs increase irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy and decrease intrapelvic pressure and probably infectious complications and may contribute to the evidence‐based decision‐making process at the individual patient level regarding whether or not a UAS should be used.

Abstract: The aim of the present paper was to review the literature on all available ureteral access sheaths (UASs) with their indications, limitations, risks, advantages and disadvantages in current modern endourological practice. Two authors searched Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases to identify studies on UASs published in English. No time period restriction was applied. All original articles reporting outcomes or innovations were included. Additional articles identified through references lists were also included. Case reports, editorials, letters, review articles and meeting abstracts were excluded. A total of 754 abstracts were screened, 176 original articles were assessed for eligibility and 83 articles were included in the review. Based on a low level of evidence, UASs increase irrigation flow during flexible ureteroscopy and decrease intrapelvic pressure and probably infectious complications. Data were controversial and sparse on the impact of UASs on multiple reinsertions and withdrawals of a ureteroscope, stone-free rates, ureteroscope protection or damage, postoperative pain, risk of ureteral strictures, and also on its cost-effectiveness. Studies on the benefit of UASs in paediatrics and in patients with a coagulopathy were inconclusive. In the absence of good randomized data, the true impact of UASs on surgery outcome remains unclear. The present review may contribute to the evidence-based decision-making process at the individual patient level regarding whether or not a UAS should be used.