ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Double-sheath vacuum suction versus vacuum-assisted sheath minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for management of large renal stones: single-center experience.
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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intrarenal pressure and clinical outcomes during suction-assisted versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Innersight, a novel software for the formation of preoperative CT-based 3D models for the treatment of lithiasis: does it really help? A pilot study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of Effectiveness and Safety of Aspiration-Assisted Nephrostomic Access Sheaths in PCNL and Intrarenal Pressures Evaluation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- A Case of Misdiagnosed as Upper Urinary Tract Obstruction Caused by the Fungal Ball.Infection and drug resistance · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare double-sheath vacuum suction minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (DS-mini-PCNL) with vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL (VS-mini-PCNL) and to better define the potential benefits of DS-mini-PCNL.
methodsBetween July 2019 and May 2020, 117 patients with large radiopaque renal stones underwent mini-PCNL. Of these, 63 underwent DS-mini-PCNL and 54 underwent VS-mini-PCNL. For VS-mini-PCNL, a F20 Y-shaped sheath was used and the oblique arm of the sheath was connected to the vacuum suction. For DS-mini-PCNL, the oblique arm of a F20 Y-shaped sheath (the outer sheath) and a F16 Y-shaped sheath (the inner sheath) was connected to the perfusion inflow and the vacuum suction, respectively. A 550-μm holmium-YAG laser was used for stone fragmentation.
resultsCompared with VS-mini-PCNL group, DS-mini-PCNL group had significantly shorter operative time (35.78 ± 7.77 min vs. 44.56 ± 13.19 min; P = 0.000) and significantly lower fever rate (1.6% vs. 11.1%; P = 0.048). It was not significantly different between the two groups despite the higher initial stone-free rate seen for DS-mini-PCNL group relative to VS-mini-PCNL group (87.7% vs. 81.5%, P = 0.346). Auxiliary procedure rates were 4.8% (three patients) in DS-mini-PCNL group and 16.7% (nine patients) in VS-mini-PCNL group, with a significant difference (P = 0.034). The difference in the final stone-free rate between the two groups was rendered insignificant (93.8% vs. 89.1%, P = 0.510).
conclusionsDS-mini-PCNL is a safe and effective modality for large renal stones, which could increase the efficiency of stone extraction and decrease infectious complications compared with VS-mini-PCNL.
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.