Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35937663›Full record

ReviewCentral European journal of urology2022

Is endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery ready for primetime in endourology? Outcomes from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vineet Gauhar, Daniele Castellani, Cecilia Maria Cracco, Cesare Marco Scoffone, Ee Jean Lim, Emanuele Rubilotta, Eugenio Pretore, Giacomo Maria Pirola, Martina Maggi, Patrick Rice and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Central European journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Current role of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones: A scoping review.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  9. Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore.
Daniele CastellaniFaculty of Medicine, School of Urology, Polytechnic University of the Marche Region, Ancona, Italy.
Cecilia Maria CraccoDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy.
Cesare Marco ScoffoneDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Torino, Italy.
Ee Jean LimDepartment of Urology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Emanuele RubilottaDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria of Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Eugenio PretoreUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Giacomo Maria PirolaDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, Multimedica Group, Milan, Italy.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Urology, Policlinico Umberto I, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Patrick RiceAcademic Foundation Doctor, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Vinson Wai-Shun ChanSchool of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom.
Jeremy Yuen-Chun TeohS.H. Ho Urology Centre, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Chin-Tiong HengDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore.
Bhaskar Kumar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Maria Pia PaviaUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · ITNg Teng Fong General Hospital · SGAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti · ITChinese University of Hong Kong · CNMultiMedica · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITSingapore General Hospital · SGUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to review the outcomes of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) as compared to conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones. Material and methods: We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. We included all studies comparing ECIRS and conventional PCNL. Surgical time, hemoglobin drop, and postoperative stay were pooled using the inverse variance of the mean difference (MD) with a random effect, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and p-values. Complications, stone-free rate, and retreatment were assessed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel method with random effect model and expressed as odds ratio (OR), 95% CI, and p-values. Results: A total of 17 studies were included. Surgical time and mean postoperative length did not significantly differ between the groups (MD -8.39 minutes 95%CI -21.30, 4.53, p = 0.20; 5.09 days 95%CI -19.51, 29.69, p = 0.69). Mean hemoglobin drop was significantly lower in the ECIRS group (MD -0.56 g/dl 95%CI -1.08, -0.05, p = 0.03), while blood transfusion rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.88 95%CI 0.64, 1.23, p = 0.15). While the incidence of postoperative sepsis did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.52 95% CI 0.17, 1.59, p = 0.25), the incidence of postoperative fever was lower in the ECIRS group but the difference was not significant (OR 0.61 95%CI 0.35, 1.06, p = 0.08). The stone-free rate was significantly higher in the PCNL group (OR 2.52 95%CI 1.64, 3.90, p <0.0001) and the retreatment rate was lower in the ECIRS group (OR 0.34 95%CI 0.14, 0.87, p = 0.002). Conclusions: ECIRS showed shorter operative time, lower complication rate, and retreatment compared to PCNL. Conventional PCNL showed a higher stone-free rate.

Indexed as

endoscopic combined intrarenal surgerykidney stonepercutaneous nephrolithotomyretrograde intrarenal surgery

Identifiers

PMID35937663
PMCPMC9326699
OpenAlexW4285154050

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.