ArticleArab journal of urology2020
Ureteric stenting vs not stenting following uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A prospective randomised trial.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04145063 (Ureteric Stenting Versus Non-stenting Following Uncomplicated Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Ureteric Stenting Versus Non-stenting Following Uncomplicated Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy: A Prospective Randomized Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of preoperative double-J stent placement on stone recurrence following flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Optimizing the outcome of non-pre-stented flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy regarding the quality of life, when to remove the stent?BMC urology · 2024Article
- Outcomes and Complications from a Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Conventional Stent Placement Versus No Stent Placement after Ureteroscopy for Distal Ureteric Calculus < 1 cmJournal of clinical medicine · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.
resultsThe mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (
conclusionDouble pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements. ABBREVIATIONS: KUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.
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.