Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32279423›Full record

ArticleBJU international2020

Management of large renal stones with super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an international multicentre comparative study.

Yang Liu, Chao Cai, Albert Aquino, Shabir Al-Mousawi, Xuepei Zhang, Simon K S Choong, Xiang He, Xianming Fan, Bin Chen, Jianhua Feng and 15 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BJU international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 18 institutions in 5 countries.

Yang LiuDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0003-0804-254X
Chao CaiDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Albert AquinoDepartment of Urology, Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila, Philippines.
Shabir Al-MousawiDivision of Urology, SABAH ALAHMAD Urology Center, Ministry of Health, Al-Amiri Hospital, Kuwait City, Kuwait.
Xuepei ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Simon K S ChoongInstitute of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Xiang HeDepartment of Urology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Xianming FanDepartment of Urology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Xiamen, China.
Bin ChenDepartment of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Jianhua FengDepartment of Urology, Longgang District Central Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Xuhui ZhuDepartment of Urology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Abdulla Al-NaimiDepartment of Urology, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Houping MaoDepartment of Urology, First Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China.
Huilong TangDepartment of Urology, The First Hospital of Hunan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Changsha, China.
Dayong JinDepartment of Urology, Liaoyuan City Central Hospital, Liaoyuan, China.
Xiancheng LiDepartment of Urology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Fenghong CaoDepartment of Urology, North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital, Tangshan, China.
Hua JiangDepartment of Urology, Zhongda Hospital Southeast Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Yongfu LongDepartment of Urology, Central Hospital of Shaoyang, Shaoyang, China.
Wei ZhangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Gang WangDepartment of Urology, National Urological Cancer Center, Institute of Urology, Peking University First Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Zihao XuDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Xin ZhangDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shanfeng YinDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Guohua ZengDepartment of Urology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Urology, Minimally Invasive Surgery Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3790-6434
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CNAmiri Hospital · KWCapital Medical University · CNDalian Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Hunan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University · CNFujian Medical University · CNFujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNHamad Medical Corporation · QAJiangsu Province Hospital · CNJosé R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center · PHLonggang Central Hospital · CNNorth China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital · CNPeking University · CNRoyal London Hospital · GBThe Central Hospital of Shaoyang · CNZhejiang Provincial People's Hospital · CNZhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

Collaborative Innovation Project of Guangzhou Education Bureau 1201620011Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission 201704020193National Natural Science Foundation of China 81800625National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870483Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2018A030310296Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province 2017B030314108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo comparatively evaluate the clinical outcomes of super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) for treating urinary tract calculi of >2 cm. PATIENTS AND

methodsAn international multicentre, retrospective cohort study was conducted at 20 tertiary care hospitals across five countries (China, the Philippines, Qatar, UK, and Kuwait) between April 2016 and May 2019. SMP and Miniperc were performed in 3525 patients with renal calculi with diameters of >2 cm. The primary endpoint was the stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary outcomes included: blood loss, operating time, postoperative pain scores, auxiliary procedures, complications, tubeless rate, and hospital stay. Propensity score matching analysis was used to balance the selection bias between the two groups.

resultsIn all, 2012 and 1513 patients underwent SMP and Miniperc, respectively. After matching, 1380 patients from each group were included for further analysis. Overall, there was no significant difference in the mean operating time or SFR between the two groups. However, the hospital stay and postoperative pain score were significantly in favour of SMP (both P < 0.001). The tubeless rate was significantly higher in the SMP group (72.6% vs 57.8%, P < 0.001). Postoperative fever was much more common in the Miniperc group (12.0% vs 8.4%, P = 0.002). When the patients were further classified into three subgroups based on stones diameters (2-3, 3-4, and >4 cm). The advantages of SMP were most obvious in the 2-3 cm stone group and diminished as the size of the stone increased, with longer operating time in the latter two subgroups. Compared with Miniperc, the SFR of SMP was comparable for 3-4 cm stones, but lower for >4 cm stones. There was no statistical difference in blood transfusions and renal embolisations between the two groups.

conclusionsOur data showed that SMP is an ideal treatment option for stones of <4 cm and is more efficacious for stones of 2-3 cm, with lesser postoperative fever, blood loss, and pain compared to Miniperc. SMP was less effective for stones of >4 cm, with a prolonged operating time.

Indexed as

Propensity ScoreFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUltrasonographyMinipercrenal calculiS.T.O.N.E scoreSuper-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomytubeless rate#UroStone

Identifiers

PMID32279423
OpenAlexW3015267035

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.