Trial reportUrolithiasis2022
Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 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
- Intelligent pressure-controlled retrograde intrarenal surgery versus microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat 2-3 cm renal calculi.Urolithiasis · 2025Trial
- Flexible mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intra-renal surgery in the management of renal stones: a randomized controlled trial.World journal of urology · 2025Trial
- Evolution of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) from Standard to Miniaturized and Ultra-Mini Techniques: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for renal calculi larger than 2 cm: a matched-pair analysis.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The surgical management of renal stones 10-30 mm is usually performed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Standard form of percutaneous nephrolithotomy has paved the way for miniaturized PCNL in many centres. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and the cost-effectiveness of ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) versus RIRS in the treatment of renal stones with stone burden 10-30 mm. Patients with renal stone burden 10-30 mm were prospectively randomized into either UMP or RIRS. The demographic data, stone characteristic, operative time and cost of the equipment were recorded. The stone free status, analgesic requirement, deterioration of the renal function and hemoglobin and the postoperative complications as per Clavein-Dindo grade were recorded. One hundred and fifty patients met inclusion criteria. Out of these 98 underwent UMP and 46 RIRS. Six withdrew the consent before the procedure. Mean stone size was comparable in either of the groups. Mean laser time and stone extraction time was significantly less for UMP compared to RIRS (41.17 min versus 73.58 min p < 0.0001). Mean consumable costs in the UMP group were considerably less at US$45.73 compared to the RIRS group at $423.11 (p < 0.0001). The stone free rates at 1 month of follow-up were 100% for UMP group and 73% for RIRS group. There were insignificant changes to mean hemoglobin and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in all patients and the average length of the stay was similar in both the groups. The postoperative complications revealed Grade I and II rate of 10% in the UMP group and 35% in the RIRS group, respectively. We concluded that UMP to be safe, effective and more economical to the RIRS for renal stones up to 3 cm in size.Trial registered with ISRCTN registry ID ISRCTN20935105, Retrospective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35107612What 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.