ArticleUrolithiasis2014
The importance of instrument type in paediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and complications of different approaches for 1-2 cm upper tract stones in the paediatric population: bicentric retrospective analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Outcomes of ultraminipercutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants: our experiences at a single center in an endemic region.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Pediatric stone disease: Current management and future concepts.Turkish archives of pediatrics · 2021Review
- Comparison of the results of pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy with different sized instruments.Urolithiasis · 2017Article
- Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an effective treatment for kidney stones in infants under 1 year of age. A single-center experience.Urolithiasis · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We reported our experience with percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children and compared the outcomes, including the morbidity and success rates, regarding the instruments of different sizes. One hundred and seventy-three paediatric patients, who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy in our clinic between 1999 and 2013, were assessed. According to the size of instruments used during surgery, three different groups were formed and the pre- and postopeartive outcomes were compared between the groups. 76 girls and 97 boys with a mean age of 9.24 (≤ 17) years were assessed. Stone-free rates were 75.6 % in group 1 (n = 82) using 17 F nephroscope, 79.4 % in group 2 (n = 73) using 24 F nephroscope and 72.2 % in group 3 (n = 18) using 26 F nephroscope. Postoperative fever was seen in four, five and one patient in group 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Urinary infection was seen in one patient in group 1 and four patients in group 2. Mean haematocrit drop and stone burden were significantly lesser in group 1. No significant difference was seen in the duration of nephrostomy and hospitalization between the groups. The success rates obtained in the groups using different instrument types (paediatric or adult) were similar. However, age, weight, height, stone burden and bleeding were significantly lesser in group 1 that used paediatric type of instrument. As the most frequent complication of PNL, bleeding seems to be associated with stone burden, the diameter of dilatation and the calibre of instrument. To decrease the particular complications, paediatric type of instruments are convenient and do not affect the success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24264889What 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.