Trial reportBMC urology2020
A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study.
Trial report in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Flank-free modified supine vs. prone position for pediatric nephrolithotripsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of postoperative outcomes of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis.Urolithiasis · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Comment on "Correlation between S.T.O.N.E score and channel size selection in percutaneous nephrolithotomy".International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Correlation between S.T.O.N.E score and channel size selection in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Predicting SIRS after PCNL using machine learning: the joint impact of sarcopenia and staghorn stones.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Clinical advantages of suctioning flexible ureteroscopy with intelligent pressure control on treating large upper urinary tract calculi.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes and Complications of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Single-Center Experience.Cureus · 2024Article
- Miniaturizing the approach to upper tract renal calculi: Is smaller always better? A narrative review.Current urology · 2023Review
- Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1-2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- A prospective, single-centered, cohort study comparing the treatment of renal stones by following PCNL types: Standard, tubeless & totally tubeless.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConventional Percutaneous Lithotripsy (PCNL) has been an effective, successful and easy approach for especially > 1 cm sized calyceal stones however risks of complications and nephron loss are inevitable. Our aim is to compare the efficacy and safety of PCNL, MiniPerc (MP) and UltraMiniPerc (UMP) for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm with a multicenter prospective randomized study.
methodsBetween January 2015 and June 2018, 132 consecutive patients with single lower calyceal stone were enrolled. Patients were randomized in three groups; A: PCNL; B: MP; C: UMP. 44 patients for the Group A, 47 for Group B and 41 for Group C. Exclusion criterias were the presence of coagulation impairments, age of < 18 or > 75, presence of infection or serious comorbidities. Patients were controlled with computerized tomography scan after 3 months. A negative CT or an asymptomatic patient with stone fragments < 3 mm size were the criteria to assess the stone-free status. Patient characteristics, stone free rates (SFR) s, complications and re-treatment rates were analyzed.
resultsThe mean stone size were 16.38, 16.82 and 15.23 mm respectively in Group A, B and C(p = 0.34). The overall SFR was significantly higher in Group A (86.3%) and B (82.9%) as compared to Group C (78%)(p < 0.05). The re-treatment rate was significantly higher in Group C (12.1%) and complication rates was higher in Group A (13.6%) as compared to others(p < 0.05). The hospitalization was significantly shorter in Group C compared to Group A (p = 0.04).
conclusionsPCNL and MP showed higher efficacy than UMP to obtain a better SFR. Auxiliary and re-treatment rates were higher in UMP. On the other hand for such this kind of stones PCNL had more complications. Overall evaluation favors MP as a better indication in stones 1-2 cm size.
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.