Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Scientific Reports
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. scientific reports
  3. articles
  4. article
Computational fluid dynamics-based flow field simulation and optimization of negative-pressure stone removal: stone size, position, and sheath geometry
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 27 February 2026

Computational fluid dynamics-based flow field simulation and optimization of negative-pressure stone removal: stone size, position, and sheath geometry

  • Cong Tian1,2 na1,
  • Jun Liu3 na1,
  • Qi Di4,
  • Baigali Zhang5,
  • Bo Yang1,2,
  • Liulin Xiong1,2 &
  • …
  • Jun Liu1,2 

Scientific Reports , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 599 Accesses

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Engineering
  • Urology

Abstract

To investigate the flow field characteristics and optimize negative-pressure stone removal strategies using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). A three-dimensional CFD model integrating the UAS, flexible ureteroscope, urinary tract, and spherical stone fragments (1–3 mm) was developed. The low-Reynolds-number *k-ε* turbulence model was applied to simulate the steady, incompressible flow under varying negative pressures. Stone size, position, and sheath parameters significantly affected removal efficiency. 1 mm stones achieved a peak suction force of 0.54 N at 5 mm from the scope tip; 2 mm stones reached 1.68 N at 45 mm, with proximal 1–2 mm fragments experiencing repulsion. 3 mm stones generated the highest force (6.6 N) at 15 mm but showed “jumping” instability due to turbulence. Vortex shedding and low-pressure zones downstream of stones enhanced mobility. The 12/14Fr sheath balanced clearance efficiency and safety. This study revealed that stone size, distance from the scope tip and UAS geometry synergistically regulate clearance efficiency. The identification of a "high-efficiency clearance region" (5–15 mm) and optimal 12/14Fr UAS configuration provides actionable insights for clinical practice, while the proposed optimization framework offers a theoretical basis for next-generation UAS design and standardized negative-pressure stone retrieval protocols.

Data availability

The CFD simulation data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Türk, C. et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur. Urol. 69(3), 475–482 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hein, S. et al. Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: Impact, detection, and how to avoid them. World J. Urol. 34(6), 771–778 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ying, Z. et al. Comparison of safety and efficacy of negative pressure aspiration assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery and traditional percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones larger than 2 cm: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. (Lond., Engl.) 111(5), 3613–3628 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Tuoheti, K. B. et al. Clinical efficacy evaluation of a novel negative pressure ureteroscopic lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Urology 187, 1–5 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chen, H. S. et al. Computational fluid dynamics modeling approaches to assess lower urinary tract hydraulic dynamics in posterior urethral valve before and after endoscopic valve ablation: A pilot study. World J. Urol. 40(2), 505–511 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Miguel, C., Sangani, A. & Wiener, S. Exploring ureteroscope design with computational fluid dynamics for improved intra-pelvic pressure. Urolithiasis 51(1), 112 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shi, J. et al. The optimal ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter with negative-pressure ureteral access sheath: An in vitro research. World J. Urol. 42(1), 122 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cen, Y. et al. Novel flexible vacuum-assisted ureteral access sheath can actively control intrarenal pressure and obtain a complete stone-free status. J. Endourol. 36(9), 1143–1148 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang, B. et al. Impact of flow rate and ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on stone removal in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: In vitro and CFD analyses insights. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 57, 2143–2152 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, Y. et al. Computational fluid dynamics analysis of the effect of ureteral access sheath positioning on stone clearance rates. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 271, 108978 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Young, C. J. et al. Volatile anesthetics decrease peristalsis in the guinea pig ureter. Anesthesiology 81(2), 452–458 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was supported by Peking University People’s Hospital research and development funds (RDL 2024–21), Tongzhou District Science and Technology Program Project (WS2025081), and Beijing Health Technologies Promotion Program (BHTPP2022082).

Author information

Author notes
  1. Cong Tian and Jun Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Peking University People’s Hospital, No.11, Xizhimen South Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100044, China

    Cong Tian, Bo Yang, Liulin Xiong & Jun Liu

  2. Peking University Applied Lithotripsy Institute, Peking University, Beijing, 100044, People’s Republic of China

    Cong Tian, Bo Yang, Liulin Xiong & Jun Liu

  3. Sichuan Purui Shunxiang Medical Devices Co., Ltd, Chengdu, 610000, People’s Republic of China

    Jun Liu

  4. Department of Urology, Ningcheng County Central Hospital, Chifeng, 024200, People’s Republic of China

    Qi Di

  5. Department of Urology, Tongliao Second People’s Hospital, Tongliao, 028000, People’s Republic of China

    Baigali Zhang

Authors
  1. Cong Tian
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jun Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Di
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Baigali Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bo Yang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liulin Xiong
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jun Liu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Data curation: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Formal analysis: Bo Yang, Liulin Xiong. Funding acquisition: Jun Liu. Investigation: Qi Di. Methodology: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Project administration: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Resources: Baigali Zhang Software: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Supervision: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Validation: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Visualization: Cong Tian, Jun Liu. Writing – original draft: Cong Tian. Writing – review and editing: Jun Liu.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun Liu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Cong Tian and Jun Liu declare that they contributed equally to this work. Remaining all authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information 1. (download PNG )

Supplementary Information 2. (download PNG )

Supplementary Information 3. (download PNG )

Supplementary Information 4. (download PDF )

Glossary

Flexible Ureteroscopy Lithotripsy (fURS)

A minimally invasive surgical approach for treating upper urinary calculi, involving the use of a flexible ureteroscope to access and break down kidney or ureteral stones.

Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS)

A hollow, tube-like medical device inserted into the ureter to facilitate the passage of a ureteroscope, maintain access, and enable irrigation or suction during urological procedures.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

An engineering methodology that uses numerical analysis and algorithms to simulate and analyze the behavior of fluid flows, applied here to model flow fields in UAS-assisted stone removal.

Stone-Free Rate (SFR)

A key clinical outcome measure indicating the proportion of patients who have no residual stone fragments (or fragments smaller than a specified size) after stone removal procedures.

Negative-Pressure Suction-Assisted Stone Retrieval

A technique integrating negative pressure with UAS and irrigation to enhance the removal of stone fragments, reduce migration, and control renal pelvic pressure.

Low-Reynolds-Number k-ε Turbulence Model

A computational model used to simulate turbulent fluid flows with low Reynolds numbers (laminar-dominated flows), accounting for viscous effects and boundary layer characteristics.

Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) Equations

A set of equations used in CFD to model turbulent flows by averaging the Navier–Stokes equations over time, enabling the prediction of mean flow behavior.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tian, C., Liu, J., Di, Q. et al. Computational fluid dynamics-based flow field simulation and optimization of negative-pressure stone removal: stone size, position, and sheath geometry. Sci Rep (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41399-1

Download citation

  • Received: 24 November 2025

  • Accepted: 19 February 2026

  • Published: 27 February 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-41399-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Flexible ureteroscopy
  • Stone Size
  • Computational fluid dynamics
  • Stone clearance rates
  • Negative-Pressure
Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • News & Comment
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • About Scientific Reports
  • Contact
  • Journal policies
  • Guide to referees
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editor's Choice
  • Journal highlights
  • Open Access Fees and Funding

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Scientific Reports (Sci Rep)

ISSN 2045-2322 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing