Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107612›Full record

Trial reportUrolithiasis2022

Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of 10-30 mm calculi: a randomized controlled trial.

Soumendra N Datta, Ramandeep S Chalokia, K W Wing, K Patel, R Solanki, Janak Desai

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Soumendra N DattaDepartment of Urology, Colchester General Hospital, Colchester, UK.
Ramandeep S ChalokiaDepartment of Urology, Colchester General Hospital, Colchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6020-1208
K W WingDepartment of Urology, Colchester General Hospital, Colchester, UK.
K PatelDepartment of Urology, Samved Hospital, Ahmedabad, India.
R SolankiDepartment of Urology, Samved Hospital, Ahmedabad, India.
Janak DesaiDepartment of Urology, Samved Hospital, Ahmedabad, India. drjanakddesai@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Kidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousNephrostomy, PercutaneousFemaleHemoglobinsHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeHemoglobinsMinimal invasive management of renal calculiRandomized controlled trialRetrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)Ultramini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.