Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28875295›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2017

A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones.

G Bozzini, P Verze, D Arcaniolo, O Dal Piaz, N M Buffi, G Guazzoni, M Provenzano, B Osmolorskij, F Sanguedolce, E Montanari and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter 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. It is linked to trial NCT05697341 (A Comparative Study Between Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones in Egypt), which is not on this map. Cited by 59 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05697341 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Comparative Study Between Ultra Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Stented Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones in Egypt

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled90ConditionsRenal StoneArmsUltra-Mini-PCNL, Stented SWL
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

59 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Clinical Assessment of Risk Factors for Renal Atrophy After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2020
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Summary of the clinical practice guideline for the management of urinary stones, third edition.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025
    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

15 authors.

G BozziniDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Mater Domini, Via Gerenzano 2, 21053, Castellanza, Varese, Italy. gioboz@yahoo.it.
P VerzeDepartment of Urology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
D ArcanioloDepartment of Urology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
O Dal PiazUniversitätsklinik für Urologie, Graz, Austria.
N M BuffiHumanitas University, Milan, Italy.
G GuazzoniHumanitas University, Milan, Italy.
M ProvenzanoHumanitas University, Milan, Italy.
B OsmolorskijDepartment of Urology, Lomonosov Hospital, Moscow, Russia.
F SanguedolceDepartment of Urology, London Barts Hospital, London, UK.
E MontanariDepartment of Urology, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
N MacchioneASST San Paolo, Milan, Italy.
K PummerUniversitätsklinik für Urologie, Graz, Austria.
V MironeDepartment of Urology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
M De SioDepartment of Urology, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
G TavernaDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Mater Domini, Via Gerenzano 2, 21053, Castellanza, Varese, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of RIRS, SWL and PCNL for lower calyceal stones sized 1-2 cm. MATERIALS AND

methodsPatients with a single lower calyceal stone with an evidence of a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm were enrolled in this multicenter, randomized, unblinded, clinical trial study. Patients were randomized into three groups: group A: SWL (194 pts); group B: RIRS (207 pts); group C: PCNL (181 pts). Patients were evaluated with KUB radiography (US for uric acid stones) at day 10 and a CT scan after 3 months. The CONSORT 2010 statement was adhered to where possible. The collected data were analyzed.

resultsThe mean stone size was 13.78 mm in group A, 14.82 mm in group B and 15.23 mm in group C (p = 0.34). Group C compared to group B showed longer operative time [72.3 vs. 55.8 min (p = 0.082)], fluoroscopic time [175.6 vs. 31.8 min (p = 0.004)] and hospital stay [3.7 vs. 1.3 days (p = 0.039)]. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) was 61.8% for group A, 82.1% for group B and 87.3% for group C. The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in group A compared to the other two groups, 61.3% (p < 0.05). The auxiliary procedure rate was comparable for groups A and B and lower for group C (p < 0.05). The complication rate was 6.7, 14.5 and 19.3% for groups A, B and C, respectively.

conclusionsRIRS and PCNL were more effective than SWL to obtain a better SFR and less auxiliary and re-treatment rate in single lower calyceal stone with a CT diameter between 1 and 2 cm. RIRS compared to PCNL offers the best outcome in terms of procedure length, radiation exposure and hospital stay. ISRCTN 55546280.

Indexed as

LithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleFluoroscopyHumansKidney CalculiLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeLower pole stonePCNLRIRSSWL

Identifiers

PMID28875295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.