Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32130621›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2020

Minimally invasive versus standard endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery for renal stones: a retrospective pilot study analysis.

Kimitsugu Usui, Mitsuru Komeya, Masataka Taguri, Koshi Kataoka, Takuo Asai, Takehiko Ogawa, Masahiro Yao, Junichi Matsuzaki

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Current role of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones: A scoping review.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  18. Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kimitsugu UsuiDepartment of Urology, Ohguchi Higashi General Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Mitsuru KomeyaDepartment of Urology, Ohguchi Higashi General Hospital, Yokohama, Japan. urology_ycu@yahoo.co.jp.
Masataka TaguriDepartment of Data Science, Yokohama City University School of Data Science, Yokohama, Japan.
Koshi KataokaDepartment of Biostatistics, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Takuo AsaiDepartment of Urology, Ohguchi Higashi General Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Takehiko OgawaDepartment of Urology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan.
Masahiro YaoDepartment of Urology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9 Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan.
Junichi MatsuzakiDepartment of Urology, Ohguchi Higashi General Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Higashi Osaka City General Hospital · JPYokohama City University · JP

Funding

a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 19K09718
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe effect of combining miniaturization with endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) is unclear. Thus, we compared the treatment outcomes between minimally invasive ECIRS (mini-ECIRS) using 16.5 Fr percutaneous access sheath and standard ECIRS using 24 Fr access sheath for renal stones MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients who underwent single session mini or standard-ECIRS in the modified Valdivia position for renal stones between April 2009 and May 2016. To adjust for patient characteristics, 77 pairs were matched using preoperative parameters including age, sex, history of febrile urinary tract infection (UTI), stone surface area, number of involved calyces, and staghorn calculi.

resultsThe stone free rate (SFR) was similar between mini and standard ECIRS according to non-contrast computed tomography (61.1% vs. 52.0%, p = 0.388). The rate of perioperative complications exceeding grade 2 based on the Clavien-Dindo classification was similar in both groups (19.5% vs. 26.0%, p = 0.442). Severe complications exceeding grade 3 were also similar in both groups (2.6% vs. 3.9%, p > 0.99). Two cases of septic shock were noted in each group. Although there was no difference regarding bleeding-related complications (2.6% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.442), pseudoaneurysm or blood transfusion was not observed in the mini-ECIRS group. Pain visual analog scale values in the perioperative period were lower in the mini-ECIRS group (1.34 ± 1.08 vs. 1.69 ± 1.23, p = 0.062).

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that, compared to standard ECIRS, mini-ECIRS maintained SFR without increasing perioperative complications, tended to reduce postoperative pain and had a potential to reduce bleeding-related complications. This report suggests the advantages of ECIRS miniaturization for renal stones.

Indexed as

UreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsRetrospective StudiesMini-ECIRSMinimally invasive endoscopic combined intrarenal surgeryRenal stoneUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID32130621
OpenAlexW3010230347

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.