ArticleUrology annals
A comparative study of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for solitary renal stone of 1-2 cm.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 5 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a grade-assessed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of outcomes in kidney stone management: stone-free rate vs. cost vs. quality of life: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of stone-free rates and complication profiles.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Flexible mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intra-renal surgery in the management of renal stones: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Reporting the Impact of Pelvicalyceal System (PCS) Anatomy on Clinical Outcomes in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) Studies: Can We Do Better? - Methodological Review from the Section of EAU Endourology.Urology research & practice · 2025Article
- A randomized comparative study of flexible ureterorenoscopy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones 2 cm or less.Current urology · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPCNL is the treatment of choice for renal stones. But wide array of complications due to larger tract size(>20 Fr) has lead to development of improved techniques like miniPCNL(<20 Fr) and RIRS(Retrograde intrarenal surgery). AIM AND
objectiveTo perform a study comparing miniPCNL with RIRS for renal stones 1-2 cm with respect to stone free rate , complications and quality of life. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective, randomised study was carried out our tertiary care centre, recruiting 40 patients in each group from Dec 2016 to Oct 2018. Patients demographic characteristics, operative findings, surgical outcomes and quality of life( SF-36 questionnaire) were recorded with 3 months of follow-up.
resultsRIRS has longer operative time (69.75 min > 51.58 min; p=0.003), lesser radiation exposure (p=0.012), shorter hospital stay (p =0.15), lesser blood loss and lesser post operative pain on POD1 and POD2 (p =0.005, p=0.001 respectively). RIRS group patients sufferred more post op complications (p=0.03 )of which urosepsis was most common. Stone free rate is significantly better(p =0.003) in miniPCNL group on POD1 , while SFR's at 1 month (miniPCNL-90% and RIRS -85%) and 3 month (miniPCNL- 92.5% and RIRS -87.5%) was better in miniPCNL group, but statistically insignificant.On subgroup analysis SFR in lower pole calculus was better in miniPCNL group at 1month and 3 month (p=0.008). Second intervention for stone clearance was required in 3 patients of miniPCNL and 5 patients of RIRS, out of which 4 had lower pole stone.No significant differnce was found in quality of life in both groups at 1 month.
conclusionMiniPCNL is a better treatment modality for higher single step stone free rate, shorter operative time and fewer postop complication. RIRS has SFR slightly less than miniPCNL but has less radiation exposure and much less post operative pain. There is no significant difference in quality of life in both groups.
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.