ArticlePloS one2018
Comparison among the available stone treatment techniques from the first European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) Survey: Do we have a Queen?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A gender-based investigation of risk factors for infectious complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: insight for personalized management.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- World-wide variation in percutaneous nephrolithotomy practices: evaluation based on training, experience, and region.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it mandatory to treat them all?Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Transient ureteral obstruction after mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is associated with stone volume and location: results from a single-center, real-life study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Surveys in endourology over time: what are the urologist preferences? A trend review over a 24-year period (2000-2024).Central European journal of urology · 2024Review
- A Newly Developed Hematuria Grading System May Predict the Status of Stone-Free and Acute Pyelonephritis of Minimally Invasive Renal Stone Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Validation of the Trifecta Scoring Metric in Vacuum-Assisted Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Urologists are optimistic surgeons: prevalence and predictors of discordance between intraoperative stone-free rate and cross-sectional imaging evaluation after vacuum-assisted mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- The comprehensive complication index as a tool for reporting the burden of complications after mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it time to leave the Clavien-Dindo classification behind?World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Cost analysis between mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with and without vacuum-assisted access sheath.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Acute Kidney Injury Following Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: predictors and Follow-up Evaluation in Real-life Setting.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe miniaturization of instruments has had an impact on stone management. The aims of this study were to highlight surgeon preferences among Retrograde Intra Renal Surgery (RIRS), Regular, Mini-, UltraMini- and Micro- Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis and to compare the effectiveness and safety of these techniques in a real-life setting.
methodsA 12-item survey regarding endourological techniques was conducted through Survey Monkey among attendees of the 2013 European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis meeting. We asked responders to share data from the last 5 cases they performed for each technique. Procedures were stratified according to stone size and the centres' surgical volume. Techniques were compared in terms of effectiveness and safety. Analyses were performed on the overall group and a subgroup of 1-2 cm stones.
resultsWe collected data from a total of 420 procedures by 30, out of 78, urologists who received the survey (response rate 38%): 140 RIRS, 141 Regular-PCNL (>20 Ch), 67 Mini-PCNL (14-20 Ch), 28 UltraMini-PCNL (11-13 Ch) and 44 Micro-PCNL (4,8-8 Ch). Techniques choice was influenced by stone size and the centre's surgical volume. Effectiveness and safety outcomes were influenced by stone size, independently of the technique. The stone-free rate was significantly lower in Micro-PCNL compared to Regular-PCNL. This was not confirmed for 1-2 cm stones. All techniques presented a lower complication rate than Regular-PCNL, with Mini-PCNL being the most protective technique compared to Regular-PCNL.
conclusionsStone size seems to drive treatment choice. Miniaturized PCNL techniques are widely employed for 1-2 cm stones, in particular in higher surgical volume centres. Mini-PCNL and RIRS are growing in popularity for stones > 2 cm. Mini-PCNL seems to be a good compromise, being the most effective and safe procedure among PCNL techniques. RIRS is characterized by satisfactory stone-free and low complication rates.
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.