Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32840338›Full record

ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Comparison of retrograde ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous anterograde ureteroscopy for removal of impacted upper ureteral stones >10mm in the elderly population.

Mehmet İlker Gökce, Çağri Akpinar, Khaled Obaid, Evren Süer, Ömer Gülpinar, Yaşar Bedük

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07362784 (Efficacy And Safety Of Antegrade Uretroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy In The Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stones Measuring > 10 mm In Maximum Dimension. A Randomized Comparative Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT07362784 nacompletednot on this map

Efficacy And Safety Of Antegrade Uretroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy In The Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stones Measuring > 10 mm In Maximum Dimension. A Randomized Comparative Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAin Shams UniversityRan2022 to 2025Enrolled100ConditionsUpper Ureteric StonesArmsantegrade flexible ureteroscopy for group A, retrograde flexible ureteroscopy For group B
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. A decisive year to International Brazilian Journal of Urology.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  5. Impacted large ureteral stone: What is the best approach?International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mehmet İlker GökceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Çağri AkpinarDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Khaled ObaidDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Evren SüerDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Ömer GülpinarDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Yaşar BedükDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Ankara University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to compare the success and complication rates of the anterograde and retrograde Ureterorenoscopy (URS) for impacted upper ureteral stones in patients > 65 years of age. MATERIALS AND

methodsData of 146 patients >65 years of age and underwent anterograde URS (n=68) in supine position or retrograde URS (n=78) for upper ureteral impacted stones>10 mm between January 2014 and September 2018 were collected prospectively. The groups were compared for success and complication rates, duration of operation, hospital stay, and ancillary procedures.

resultsAnterograde and retrograde URS groups were similar for demographic and stone related characteristics. The success rate of the anterograde URS group was significantly higher than the retrograde URS group (97.1% vs. 78.2%, p=0.0007). The complication rates were similar for the two groups (p=0.86). Clavien grade I and II complications were observed in 3 patients in each group. The mean hemoglobin drop was 0.5 g/dL in the anterograde URS group and blood transfusion was not performed in any of the patients. The mean duration of operation was 41.2±12.5 minutes in the mini-PNL group and 59.6±15.1 minutes in the RIRS group and the difference was statistically significant (p=0.02). The median duration of hospitalization was 1 day for both groups.

conclusionsPerforming anterograde URS in supine position provided better success rates and similar complication rates compared to retrograde URS. Based on these results anterograde URS shall be considered as one of the primary treatment options for management of impacted upper ureteral stones in the elderly population.

Indexed as

LithotripsyUreteral CalculiAgedHumansLength of StayRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyHousing for the ElderlyUreteral ObstructionUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID32840338
PMCPMC7712678
OpenAlexW3080470315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.