Trial reportWorld journal of urology2013
Randomized prospective trial of tubeless versus conventional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Totally tubeless, tubeless, and tubed percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treating kidney stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Should mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MiniPNL/Miniperc) be the ideal tract for medium-sized renal calculi (15-30 mm)?World journal of urology · 2018Trial
- Pain management in percutaneous nephrolithotomy - an approach rooted in pathophysiology.Nature reviews. Urology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Standard Technique Versus Tubeless - 125 Procedures.Cureus · 2019Article
- [S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2016Review
- Minituriazed percutaneous nephrolithotomy: what does it mean?Urolithiasis · 2016Review
- Advances in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and patient selection: an update.Current urology reports · 2013Review
- Trends of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in Saudi Arabia.Urology annalsArticle
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) without nephrostomy drainage tubes.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled 32 eligible patients with kidney stones at our hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to a conventional mPCNL group (ureteric Double-J stents and nephrostomy drainage tubes) or a tubeless mPCNL group (ureteric catheter but no drainage tubes). A single experienced surgeon performed all operations.
resultsAt baseline, the two groups had similar age, maximum stone diameter, and gender distribution. There were no significant differences in operation time, presence of postoperative fever, stone clearance, and level of postoperative serum hemoglobin. However, the tubeless mPCNL group had significantly shorter hospital stays (3 vs. 4 days, p = 0.032) and significantly less back pain (5 patients vs. 14 patients, p = 0.003) than the conventional mPCNL group.
conclusionsNo significant differences were found between conventional and tubeless mPCNL in safety issues and stone clearance rate. However, patients treated with tubeless mPCNL had shorter hospitalization stays and were less likely to experience back pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22903789What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.