ArticleUrolithiasis2016
Prospective randomized comparison between superior calyceal access versus inferior calyceal access in PCNL for inferior calyceal stones with or without pelvic stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Superior calyceal access vs. other calyceal access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Craniocaudal bull's eye technique for superior calyceal access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Determination of angle, efficacy, and outcomes.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
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
The objective of this study is to assess the efficacy of superior calyceal access versus inferior calyceal access for inferior calyceal calculi with or without pelvic calculi. A total of 100 patients with inferior calyceal calculi or inferior calyceal calculi with pelvic calculi were included in this prospective randomized study. In 50 patients (Group 1), a fluoroscopy-assisted superior calyceal puncture was made, and in other 50 patients (Group 2), access was obtained through a fluoroscopy-assisted inferior calyceal puncture. The stone-free rates, hemoglobin drop, operative duration, requirement for additional tracts, complications, and auxiliary procedures in the two groups were compared. Stone clearance rates and hemoglobin drop values were better in group 1, though they were not statistically significant. The mean operative duration, number of tracts required, and the relook procedure rate were significantly in favor of Group 1. Only one patient (2%) in Group 1 developed hydropneumothorax related to supracostal puncture and required intercostal tube drainage. Superior calyceal puncture (supracostal or infracostal) provides favorable access to inferior calyceal stones, providing better and faster clearance with less requirement of secondary tracts and auxiliary procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26188918What 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.