ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2021
Can mini PCNL achieve the same results as RIRS? The initial single center experience.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrolithiasis is a prevalent disease worldwide with high recurrence rate, minimally invasive interventions have largely replaced open ones, namely PCNL and RIRS. Miniaturization, optical improvements, and modern laser types made these procedures safe and effective in the management of single renal stones. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis prospective study that included 60 patients with single renal stones of ≤25 mm and were treated by either mini PCNL (group A) or RIRS (group B). The study was performed during the period from October 2020 to April 2021.
resultsThe mean operative time RIRS group was 43.6 ± 10.493, while for miniPCNL it was 36.6 ± 7.035 (P = 0.004). The stone free rate in RIRS and miniPCNL group was 70% and 90% respectively (P = 0.053). The need for JJ stent was higher in RIRS compared to miniPCNL group (70% vs. 40%) respectively (P = 0.02). The duration of hospital stay in miniPCNL was 38.2 h compared to 16.7 h for RIRS group (p = 0.0001). The rate of postoperative hemoglobin drop was higher in MiniPCNL compared to RIRS (P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference regarding complication rates between both groups.
conclusionMini-PCNL FOR the treatment of renal stones sized ≤25 mm has high stone free rate, shorter operative time, less requirement for JJ stent and near similar post-operative pain and complications compared to RIRS.
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.