ArticleUrologia internationalis2021
Comparison of Primary and Delayed Ureteroscopy for Ureteric Stones: A Prospective Non-Randomized Comparative Study.
Article in Urologia internationalis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing of definitive stone management in acute obstructive urolithiasis: does early intervention improve outcomes? A meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and effectiveness of preoperative stenting compared to non-stenting in ureteroscopy for urinary stone disease: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Impact of Personnel Scarcity on Urolithiasis Treatment: A Comparative Study of the Pre- and Post-Pandemic Eras.Urologia internationalis · 2025Article
- Urgent ureterorenoscopy as a primary treatment for ureteral stone: why not?Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Ureteroscopy Versus Double J Stenting in Emergency Treatment of Obstructive Lithiasis.Maedica · 2023Article
- Comparison of immediate versus post-stenting ureteroscopy for ureteral stones treatment.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Facilitated ureteroscopy using DJ stent implantation in ureterolithiasis: A retrospective study.The Journal of international medical research · 2023Article
- Double-J stent versus percutaneous nephrostomy for emergency upper urinary tract decompression.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Emergency Primary Ureteroscopy for Acute Ureteric Colic-From Guidelines to Practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.Central European journal of urology · 2022Article
- Primary ureteroscopy versus emergency stenting and delayed ureteroscopy: Is there a winner?Central European journal of urology · 2021Article
- Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Treatment of Ureteric Stones - State-of-the-Art Review.Research and reports in urology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrimary ureteroscopy (P-URS) has been shown to be as safe and as efficacious as preoperative stent insertion followed by a delayed ureteroscopy (D-URS). However, studies are of limited patient cohort.
methodsA prospective study comparing P-URS and laser fragmentation for ureteric stones to those who received a stent insertion followed by D-URS and stone fragmentation.
resultsA total of 367 consecutive patients were included. P-URS was conducted on 235 patients and D-URS on 132 patients. There was no overall difference between patient or stone demographics between the 2 groups, although there were more proximal ureteric and pelvi-ureteric junction stones in the preoperative stent group. The mean operative times were comparable with a stone free rate of 97 and 94% in the preoperative stent and no-stent groups, respectively. The overall complication rates were comparable.
conclusionThe current study provides evidence for the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of P-URS for ureteric calculi in a publicly funded healthcare setting with results comparable to those patients with a preoperative stent and delayed procedure. Therefore, cumulatively, P-URS could lead to less hospitalization, length of stay, stent-related morbidity, and ultimately will be more cost-effective.
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.