Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31073641›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

iPad-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): a matched pair analysis compared to standard PCNL.

Marie-Claire Rassweiler-Seyfried, J J Rassweiler, C Weiss, M Müller, H P Meinzer, L Maier-Hein, J T Klein

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marie-Claire Rassweiler-SeyfriedDepartment of Urology, University Medical Centre Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. Marie-claire.rassweiler@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1670-4072
J J RassweilerDepartment of Urology, SLK Hospital Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany.
C WeissDepartment of Medical Statistics and Biomathematics, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
M MüllerDepartment of Medical and Biological Informatics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heilbronn, Germany.
H P MeinzerDepartment of Medical and Biological Informatics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heilbronn, Germany.
L Maier-HeinDepartment of Medical and Biological Informatics, German Cancer Research Centre (DKFZ), Heilbronn, Germany.
J T KleinDepartment of Urology, Ulm University Medical Centre, Ulm, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare iPad-assisted (Apple Inc., Cupertino, USA) percutaneous access to the kidney to the standard puncturing technique for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

methodsFor the iPad-assisted PCNL, a computed tomography is performed prior to surgery, using fiducial radiopaque markers. The important anatomical structures (i.e. kidney, stones) are segmented using specific software enabling the superimposition of images semi-transparently on the iPad by marker-based navigation. Twenty-two patients underwent an iPad-assisted percutaneous puncture of the kidney for PCNL. Twenty-two patients of the clinical database from the Urological Department SLK Hospital Heilbronn, who underwent the standard puncturing technique, were matched to these patients. Matching criteria were age, gender, stone volume, body mass index, stone site and the absence of anatomical variation. Puncture time, radiation exposure and number of attempts for a successful puncture were evaluated. All procedures were performed by two experienced urologists. The standard puncturing method consisted of a combination of ultrasound and fluoroscopy guidance. Chi-square and t test were used to ensure that there was no difference in the matching criteria between the groups. To compare the two methods, U test, Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square test were used.

resultsExamination of radiation exposure showed a significant difference between the two groups in favour of the standard puncturing method (p < 0.01) and puncture time (p = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in puncturing attempts (p = 0.45).

conclusionThe iPad-assisted navigation, with the objective being to puncture the renal collecting system, represents a new technique (IDEAL criteria 2b), which proved to be applicable in clinical practice, but still has potential for technical improvement.

Indexed as

Computers, HandheldAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMatched-Pair AnalysisMiddle AgedNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousSurgery, Computer-AssistedUltrasonographyYoung AdultAugmented realityNavigationPercutaneous nephrolithotomyUrolithiasisVirtual reality

Identifiers

PMID31073641
OpenAlexW2944050498

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.