SynthesisUrologia internationalis2021
Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Urologia internationalis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- A meta-analysis: retrograde intrarenal surgery vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- The High Risk Factors and Preventive Measures of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy under the Guidance of B-Ultrasound in the Treatment of Postoperative Renal Calculi.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvances in micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones have made it an alternative approach to the retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) approach. Nevertheless, the superiority of micro-PCNL over RIRS is still under debate. The results are controversial.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical results in patients presenting with kidney stones treated with micro-PCNL or RIRS.
methodsA literature search was done for electronic databases to identify researches that compared micro-PCNL and RIRS till December 2019. The clinical outcome included complications, stone-free rates (SFRs), hemoglobin reduction, length of hospital stay, and operative time.
resultsFive articles were included in our study. The pooled results revealed no statistical difference in the rate of complications (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.57-1.74, p = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD = -0.29, 95% CI = -0.82 to 0.24, p = 0.28), and operative time (MD = -6.63, 95% CI = -27.34 to 14.08, p = 0.53) between the 2 groups. However, significant difference was present in hemoglobin reduction (MD = -0.43, 95% CI = -0.55 to 0.30, p < 0.001) and the SFRs (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36-0.98, p = 0.04) when comparing RIRS with micro-PCNL.
conclusionsCompared with micro-PCNL to treat kidney stones, RIRS is associated with better stone clearance and bearing higher hemoglobin loss. As the advantages of both technologies have been shown in some fields, the continuation of well-designed clinical trials may be necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33227794What 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.