Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26705003›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2016

Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly.

Henglong Hu, Yuchao Lu, Deng He, Lei Cui, Jiaqiao Zhang, Zhenyu Zhao, Baolong Qin, Yufeng Wang, Feng Lin, Shaogang Wang

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Henglong HuDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Yuchao LuDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Deng HeDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Lei CuiDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Jiaqiao ZhangDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Zhenyu ZhaoDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Baolong QinDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Yufeng WangDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China.
Feng LinDepartment of Urology, Puai Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 473 Hanzheng Street, Wuhan, China. linfengpuai@163.com.
Shaogang WangDepartment and Institute of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No. 1095 Jiefang Avenue, 430030, Wuhan, China. sgwangtjm@163.com.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNTongji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) for the treatment of renal and/or proximal ureteral stones sized 1-2 cm in the elderly (≥60 years). Between January 2010 and March 2015, 184 consecutive mPNL and fURS were performed to treat intermediate renal and/or proximal ureteral stones in geriatric patients. The records were retrospectively reviewed and outcomes were compared. Although no significant difference was found in the complication rate between two groups, a statistical trend (p = 0.059) in favor of fURS was observed. In addition, multivariate analysis demonstrated that mPNL, preoperative positive urine culture and lower hemoglobin were independent risk factors for postoperative complication (p = 0.016, p = 0.021, p = 0.001, respectively). And fURS was significantly associated with less hemoglobin drop, red blood cell transfusion, analgesics requirement, postoperative hospital duration, and charges of laboratory tests, medical examinations and medications (p = 0.019, p = 0.037, p = 0.006, p = 0.000 and p = 0.007, p = 0.000, p = 0.000, p = 0.001, respectively), while higher costs of operations (p = 0.008). Receiver operating characteristic curve suggested a preoperative hemoglobin of 106.5 g/L as the threshold for predicting red blood cell transfusion after mPNL. The overall one-session stone-free rate of fURS at 1 month was lower (p = 0.006), while it was similar for solitary stone between two groups. Comorbidity and previous stone surgery did not affect postoperative complication and stone-free rate. This study shows that mPNL is more effective for multiple stones, but fURS is associated with potentially less complications and postoperative hospital stay. Furthermore, preoperative hemoglobin level and urine culture can be used to predict postoperative complication risk and they may be helpful in choosing treatment methods for the elderly.

Indexed as

UreteroscopyAgedAged, 80 and overEquipment DesignFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNephrostomy, PercutaneousPostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesUreteral CalculiUreteroscopesCalculiElderlyFlexible ureteroscopyMinimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomyRetrograde intrarenal surgery

Identifiers

PMID26705003
OpenAlexW2311734324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.