ReviewCentral European journal of urology2022
Is endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery ready for primetime in endourology? Outcomes from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- An Updated Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for Upper Urinary Tract Calculi.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: From percutaneous nephrolithotomy to the future of stone management.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Review
- Nationwide Transition From Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy to Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery in Japan: A Multicenter Survey of Trends and Complications.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2026Article
- Prevention of complications in endourological management of stones: What are the basic measures needed before, during, and after interventions?Asian journal of urology · 2024Review
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, ureterolithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy challenges in managing spinal cord neuropathy patients. Lessons learned from a scoping review.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- The Consecutive 200 Cases of Endoscopic-Combined Intrarenal Surgery: Comparison between Standard and Miniature Surgeries.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Hydrostatic pressure of the renal pelvis as a radiation-free alternative to fluoroscopic nephrostogram following percutaneous nephrolithotomy.BMC urology · 2023Article
- 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 IndiaArticle
- Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery: best practices and future perspectives.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.