ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2020
Flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy combined with metallic ureteral stents for the treatment of patients with upper urinary tract calculi.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic effects of flexible ureteroscopy alone and in combination with external physical vibration on upper urinary tract calculi: a randomized controlled trial.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (FURS) is the most common treatment for patients with upper urinary tract calculi (diameter, <2 cm). The purpose of this prospective study was to assess the efficacy of FURS combined with metallic ureteral stents (MUS) for the treatment of upper urinary tract calculi. A total of 38 patients with upper urinary tract calculi were recruited in the present study, to compare the efficacy between FURS and FURS combined with MUS (FURS-MUS). The results demonstrated that FURS-MUS shortened operative time compared with FURS (35.2±1.2 vs. 57.4±1.7 min, respectively; P<0.01). Data also indicated that the clearance rate in FURS-MUS and FURS was decreased from 94.5 and 87.8%, respectively (P<0.05). FURS-MUS treatment decreased the duration of postoperative hospital stay compared with FURS (4.5±0.5 vs. 7.5±1.5 days, respectively; P<0.05). These data demonstrated that FURS-MUS significantly increased postoperative inflammation score compared with FURS (6.2±0.8 vs. 4.2±1.0, respectively; P<0.05). The complication rate and blood loss exhibited no significant difference between FURS-MUS and FURS (complication rate, 6.5% vs. 5.9%, respectively; blood loss, 4.2% vs. 4.6%, respectively). FURS-MUS significantly decreased inflammatory cytokines and risk of sepsis, and improved readmission rate, stone recurrence and progression-free survival compared with patients treated with FURS. In conclusion, these data suggested that FURS-MUS may be an efficient, minimally invasive and reproducible operation for patients with upper urinary tract calculi.
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.