Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28589217›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2017

A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones.

Abdulkadir Kandemir, Selcuk Guven, Mehmet Balasar, Mehmet Giray Sonmez, Hakan Taskapu, Recai Gurbuz

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Research progress of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International urology and nephrology · 2018
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Abdulkadir KandemirDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey. drkandemir87@gmail.com.
Selcuk GuvenDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Istanbul Medipol University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet BalasarDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey.
Mehmet Giray SonmezDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey.
Hakan TaskapuDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey.
Recai GurbuzDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, 42080, Akyokuş, Konya, Turkey.
Necmettin Erbakan University · TRIstanbul Medipol University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo make a comparison between the safety and efficacy of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. PATIENTS AND

methods60 patients presenting with solitary lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm were included in the study between March 2013 and December 2015. Patients were randomized into Microperc or RIRS groups with computer-generated numbers.

resultsThe mean stone size was 10.6 (5-15) and 11.5 (7-15) mm for Microperc and RIRS groups, respectively (P = 0.213). In the Microperc group, the scopy time was 158.5 s, while in the RIRS group, the scopy time was 26.6 s (P = 0.001). The hospitalization period in the Microperc group was 542 h, while it was 19 h in the RIRS group (P = 0.001). No statistical differences were observed during the operating time, pre-operative-post-operative hemoglobin (Hb), serum creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration speed (e-GFR) values and stone-free rates. No intraoperative complications were observed in either of the groups, while post-operative complications were observed in six patients in Microperc Group and five patients belonging to the RIRS Group (P = 0.922).

conclusionsBoth Microperc and RIRS are safe and effective alternatives, and have similar stone clearance and complication rates for the management of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm in diameter. However, prolonged hospital stay and scopy times are the main disadvantages of Microperc and further research is needed to evaluate the renal tubular damages caused by both of these methods.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolCreatinineFemaleGlomerular Filtration RateHemoglobinsHumansInfantIntraoperative ComplicationsKidneyKidney CalculiLength of StayCreatinineHemoglobinsFlexibleLower pole kidney stonesMicropercPercutaneous nephrolithotomyRetrograde intrarenal surgeryUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID28589217
OpenAlexW2623713415

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.