Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29536158›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2018

Comparative study of the treatment of 20-30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients.

He-Qun Chen, Zhi-Yong Chen, Feng Zeng, Yang Li, Zhong-Qing Yang, Cheng He, Yao He

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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.

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

17 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. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

He-Qun ChenDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Zhi-Yong ChenDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Feng ZengDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Yang LiDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Zhong-Qing YangDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Cheng HeDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China.
Yao HeDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, No. 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, China. heyao1984@163.com.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81700663National Natural Science Foundation of China 81770705
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate and compare flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) for 20-30 mm renal stones in obese patients regarding efficacy and safety.

methodsBetween May 2011 and June 2017, 254 obese patients who had 20-30 mm kidney stone were consecutively included in the study; 106 patients underwent mPNL and 148 underwent f-URS by the same surgeon. The following parameters were retrospectively assessed: patient and stone characteristics, surgical details, perioperative outcomes, and stone-free rates (SFR).

resultsF-URS group was similar to mPNL group in terms of the mean duration of surgery (92.8 ± 26.1 vs 87.4 ± 31.5 min, P = 0.137) and the final SFR (89.1 vs 92.5%, P = 0.381). The f-URS group had significantly shorter postoperative stay (1.0 ± 0.8 vs 4.3 ± 1.7 days, P < 0.001) and lower postoperative complications (11.5 vs 26.4%, P = 0.002). However, the f-URS group had a lower SFR after first session (67.2 vs 87.4%, P < 0.001) and needed more number of procedures (1.5 ± 0.4 vs 1.3 ± 0.4, P < 0.001) than the mPNL group.

conclusionsMPNL has a higher efficacy (higher SFR after first session and lower number of procedures); however, f-URS offers advantages regarding safety (lower complication rate). Therefore, both options can be offered to obese patients with renal stones from 20 to 30 mm in size. Nevertheless, these results must be confirmed by further prospective randomized trials.

Indexed as

FemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedMiniaturizationNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousObesityOperative TimeRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyF-URSMPNLObeseRenal stonesSize

Identifiers

PMID29536158

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.