ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Flexible ureteroscopy in extreme elderly patients (80 years of age and older) is feasible and safe.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the elderly. is it safe and effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of ureterorenoscopy in the elderly: A systematic review axnd meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Outcomes following surgical management of urinary stone disease in older patients.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- An international delphi survey and consensus meeting to define the risk factors for ureteral stricture after endoscopic treatment for urolithiasis.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Recurrent Urinary Stone Formers: Imaging Assessment and Endoscopic Treatment Strategies: A Systematic Search and Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Is ureteroscopy and active stone treatment safe and effective in octogenarians? A review of current literature.Arab journal of urology · 2024Review
- Does age impact outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the elderly? Results from 366 patients from the FLEXible ureteroscopy outcomes registry (FLEXOR).Aging clinical and experimental research · 2023Article
- Ureteroscopy in the elderly: safety and functional results.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Stone-event-free survival after ureteroscopic lithotripsy by age: comparison between young and older patients.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Active stone removal is a safe option for ocotogenarians and nonagenarians with nephrolithiasis.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Comparison and Evaluation of Outcomes of Ureteroscopy and Stone Laser Fragmentation in Extremes of Age Groups (≤10 Years and ≥80 Years of Age): A Retrospective Comparative Analysis of over 15 Years from 2 Tertiary European Centres.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Can We Identify Patients in Danger of Complications in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery?-A Retrospective Risk Factors Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the safety and efficacy of RIRS in patients ≥ 80 years to a younger population.
methodsWe retrospectively compared the data from patients ≥ 80 years of age undergoing RIRS with the data of a group of patients from 18 and < 80 years. Perioperative outcomes, complications and emergency department visits were compared between two groups.
resultsA total of 173 patients were included in the study. Mean age was 44 (27-79) and 81 years-old (80-94), for younger and elderly group, respectively. Elderly patients had higher ASA scores (≥ 3) (28.6% vs 75.8%; p = 0.0001) and Charlson comorbidity index (1.99 vs 7.86; p = 0.0001), more diabetes (p = 0.006) and respiratory comorbidities (p = 0.002). No statistical difference was found between two groups in stone size (p = 0.614) and number (p = 0.152). Operative time (74.48 vs 102.96 min; p = 0.0001) and duration of hospitalisation (1.7 vs 2.9 days; p = 0.001) were longer for the elderly. Intraoperative complication rate did not show differences between the two groups (p = 0.166). Postoperative complications rates were similar between the cohorts (7.7% vs 9.5%; p = 0.682). The success rates were 67.5% in the younger group and 71.4% in the elderly group (p = 0.584). No difference was seen in stone recurrence (p = 0.73). A higher rate of visits to the emergency department was found in younger cohort (23.6% vs 11.6%; p = 0.046), mostly duo to stent-related symptoms.
conclusionsDespite the higher rate of comorbidity in the elderly group, RIRS was a safe procedure with similar complication rate and outcomes at an expense of higher operative time and hospital stay.
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.