ArticleWorld journal of urology2016
Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results.
Article in World journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Stone dust in endourology: a systematic review of its definition, management, and clinical impact.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment: an algorithm from the EAU Urolithiasis Panel.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Postoperative urinary stone analysis-influence of the hydrogel retrieval method on stone analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- A novel small fragment removal system holds promise to improve stone extraction during lithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Which sucks more? Comparison of two novel direct-in-scope suction ureteroscopes to a conventional ureteroscope.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Assessment of a novel bendable-tip ureteral access sheath with integrated suction: an in vitro study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Harnessing magnetism: evaluation of safety, tolerance and feasibility of magnetic kidney stone retrieval in vivo in porcine models.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Novel small fragment removal system may improve extraction of renal calculi: an in vitro study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy analysis of tip‑flexible suctioning ureteral access sheath combined with disposable flexible ureteroscope to treat 2-4 cm renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
- What is the definition of stone dust and how does it compare with clinically insignificant residual fragments? A comprehensive review.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Comparison of novel flexible and traditional ureteral access sheath in retrograde intrarenal surgery.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- GeoBioMed perspectives on kidney stone recurrence from the reactive surface area of SWL-derived particles.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A simple predictive model with internal validation for assessment of stone-left after ureteroscopic lithotripsy in upper ureteral stones.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Definition of clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy among urologists: a world-wide survey by EAU-YAU Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group.Central European journal of urology · 2022Article
- Optimal Delivery of Follow-Up Care for the Prevention of Stone Recurrence in Urolithiasis Patients: Improving Outcomes.Research and reports in urology · 2022Review
- What is the exact definition of stone dust? An in vitro evaluation.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Viability and biocompatibility of an adhesive system for intrarenal embedding and endoscopic removal of small residual fragments in minimally-invasive stone treatment in an in vivo pig model.World journal of urology · 2018Article
- Computed tomography window affects kidney stones measurements.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the spontaneous clearance rates of remnant particles following miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).
methodsAmong 624 patients who underwent mini-PCNL or RIRS at our institution from 2011 to 2015, we collected data of 247 patients with 2 years of follow-up. Of these, we included 148 patients with unilateral renal stones between 10 and 30 mm, as well as remnant particles after surgery. The size criteria of dusts and residual fragments (RFs) were, respectively, <1 and <3 mm.
resultsAfter excluding 22 patients, 126 patients (RFs = 21, dusts = 98, and both RFs and dusts = 7) were analyzed. Mean age was 56.5 (±14.4) years, and mean stone size was 19.5 (±12.5) mm. The mean follow-up period was 18.5 (± 12.9) months. In patients whose remnant particles were naturally eliminated following lithotripsy, the mean stone passage time was 9.0 (±9.3) months in the dusts and 13.9 (±11.1) months in the RFs groups (P = 0.135). Remnant particles disappeared in 42 out of 105 patients (40.0 %) in dusts and 7 out of 28 patients (25.0 %) in RFs groups (P = 0.187). The size of dusts and RFs increased, respectively, in 18.1 % (19/105) and 28.6 % (8/28) of patients with remnant particles during the follow-up period.
conclusionsThe presence of dusts and RFs was poor prognostic factors in patients underwent renal stone surgery using a holmium laser. Complete residual stone removal by using a basket or dusts eradication by irrigation for an adequate time during surgery can be a good surgical strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.