Conventional FANS
Cross-source consensus on Conventional FANS from 1 sources and 4 claims.
1 sources · 4 claims
Uses
How it works
Risks & contraindications
Comparisons
Highlighted claims
- Conventional FANS depends largely on passive bending generated by the flexible ureteroscope inside the sheath. — Steerable versus Conventional flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) flexible Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole stones Treatment: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised superiority trial (SCULPT trial)
- Conventional FANS brands are standardised within each centre but may vary between centres. — Steerable versus Conventional flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) flexible Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole stones Treatment: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised superiority trial (SCULPT trial)
- If conventional sheath access to the lower pole calyx fails, surgeons may need baskets to relocate stones or retrieve fragments. — Steerable versus Conventional flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) flexible Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole stones Treatment: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised superiority trial (SCULPT trial)
- A small ureteroscope may have limited ability to bend and drive a conventional sheath into the lower calyx. — Steerable versus Conventional flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath (FANS) flexible Ureteroscopy for Lower Pole stones Treatment: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised superiority trial (SCULPT trial)