ArticleUrology annals
Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy as a monotherapy for the management of intermediate-sized renal pelvic stones.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal stones: a meta-analysis.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Pooled it
- Analysis of the clinical effect and long-term follow-up results of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in the treatment of complicated upper ureteral calculi (report of 206 cases followed for 10 years).International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- Pyelolithotomy in a Patient with Complete Coraliform Calcification Induced by a Double-J Ureteral Stent.Case reports in urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRenal calculi are one of the major reason leading to kidney failure or urinal obstructions. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is considered as the major management option for intermediate to large renal pelvic stones. In the present study we compare Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs laparoscopic pyelolithotomy procedures in the management of intermediate sized renal pelvic stones.
methodsThe time duration of study was between July 2012 and Jan 2014, 20 patients with solitary intermediate sized renal pelvic stones were selected and randomly divided into two groups; group one included 10 patients who were treated by laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and group two included 10 patients who were treated by PCNL. The differences in procedure time, blood loss, stone clearance and duration of hospital stay between the two procedures were compared and analyzed.
resultsThere was no difference between the two groups regarding patient demographics and stone size. There was statistically significant difference between laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and PCNL regarding mean estimated blood loss (<50 mL vs. 180-250 mL), hospital stay (3-5 days vs. 4-6 days), mean time of postoperative analgesia (2.2 ± 0.9 days vs. 2 ± 0.9 days), and stone-free rate (100% vs. 95%). The operative time was significantly longer in the laparoscopic pyelolithotomy group (80-150 min vs. 45-75 min).
conclusionAlthough PCNL is the gold standard for intermediate-sized renal pelvic stones of 2-4 cm, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a suitable surgical technique in selected cases.
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.