Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662708›Full record

Trial reportBMC urology2017

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial.

Yunyan Wang, Bing Zhong, Xiaosong Yang, Gongcheng Wang, Peijin Hou, Junsong Meng

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yunyan WangDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China.
Bing ZhongDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China.
Xiaosong YangDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China.
Gongcheng WangDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China.
Peijin HouDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China.
Junsong MengDepartment of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, No. 6 West Beijing Road, Huai'an, Jiangsu, 223300, China. hayywyy1322@163.com.
Huaian First People’s Hospital · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are three minimally invasive methods for the management of large upper impacted ureteral stones: mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), transurethral ureteroscope lithotripsy (URSL), and retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (RPLU). This study aimed to compare MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU, and to evaluate which one is the best choice for large upper impacted ureteral stones.

methodsBetween January 2012 and December 2015, at the Department of Urology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, 150 consecutively enrolled patients with a large upper impacted ureteral stone (>15 mm) were included. The patients were randomly divided (1:1:1) into the MPCNL, URSL, and RPLU groups. The primary endpoint was success of stone removal measured 1 month postoperatively and the secondary endpoints were intraoperative and postoperative parameters and complications.

resultsFifteen patients needed auxiliary ESWL after URSL, and 3 patients after MPCNL, but none after RPLU. The stone clearance rate was 96% (48/50) in the MPCNL group and 72% (33/46) in the URSL group. In the RPLU group the stones were completely removed and the stone clearance rate was 100% (48/48) (P = 0.021 vs. URSL; P = 0.083 vs. MPCNL). Operation-related complications were similar among the three groups (all P > 0.05). Hospital stay was shorter in the URSL group compared with MPCNL (P = 0.003). Operation time was the shortest with URSL and the longest with MPCNL (all P < 0.05).

conclusionsMPCNL and RPUL are more suitable for upper ureteral impacted stones of >15 mm. URSL could be considered if the patient is not suitable for general anesthesia, or the patient requests transurethral uretroscopic surgery.

trial registrationThis study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration number: ChiCTR-INR-17011507 ; Registration date: 2017-5-22).

Indexed as

AdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLaparoscopyLithotripsyMaleMiddle AgedNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousTreatment OutcomeUreteral CalculiUreteroscopyLaparoscopyNephrostomy, PercutaneousUreteral calculiUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID28662708
PMCPMC5492714
OpenAlexW2726504275

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.