Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32728884›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of urology2021

Consultation on kidney stones, Copenhagen 2019: lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Tomas Andri Axelsson, Cecilia Cracco, Mahesh Desai, Mudhar Nazar Hasan, Thomas Knoll, Emanuele Montanari, Daniel Pérez-Fentes, Michael Straub, Kay Thomas, James C Williams and 2 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readConsensus StatementReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Tomas Andri AxelssonDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
Cecilia CraccoDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital of Torino, Turin, Italy.
Mahesh DesaiMuljibhai Patel Urological Hospital, Nadiad, Gujarat, India.
Mudhar Nazar HasanDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
Thomas KnollDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Boeblingen, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany.
Emanuele MontanariUrological Dept. at Fondazione Ca Granda-Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milan, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Daniel Pérez-FentesDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Michael StraubDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Kay ThomasStone Unit, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James C WilliamsDepartment of Anatomy, Cell Biology and Physiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Marianne BrehmerDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
Palle J S OstherUrological Research Center, Department of Urology, Lillebaelt Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark. palle.osther@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7962-1640
Karolinska Institutet · SEGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBIndiana University School of MedicineKlinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen · DEMuljibhai Patel Urological Hospital · INTUM Klinikum · DEUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the balance between existing evidence and expert opinions on the safety and efficacy of new technological improvements in lithotripsy techniques for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

methodsA scoping review approach was applied to search literature in Pubmed, Embase, and Web of Science. Consensus by key opinion leaders was reached at a 2-day meeting entitled "Consultation on Kidney Stones: Aspects of Intracorporeal Lithotripsy" held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in September 2019.

resultsNew-generation dual-mode single-probe lithotripsy devices have shown favourable results compared with use of ballistic or ultrasonic lithotripters only. However, ballistic and ultrasonic lithotripters are also highly effective and safe and have been the backbone of PCNL for many years. Compared with standard PCNL, it seems that mini PCNL is associated with fewer bleeding complications and shorter hospital admissions, but also with longer operating room (OR) time and higher intrarenal pressure. Use of laser lithotripsy combined with suction in mini PCNL is a promising alternative that may improve such PCNL by shortening OR times. Furthermore, supine PCNL is a good alternative, especially in cases with complex renal stones and large proximal ureteric stones; in addition, it facilitates endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS).

conclusionRecent technological improvements in PCNL techniques are promising, but there is a lack of high-level evidence on safety and efficacy. Different techniques suit different types of stones and patients. The evolution of diverse methods has given urologists the possibility of a personalized stone approach, in other words, the right approach for the right patient.

Indexed as

LithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousCombined Modality TherapyHumansKidney CalculiTreatment OutcomeBallisticKidney calculiLaserLithotripsyPCNLUltrasonic

Identifiers

PMID32728884
PMCPMC8217030
OpenAlexW3045979745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.