ArticlePediatric surgery international2022
What is the best approach for pediatric kidney stones of moderate-sized between shock wave lithotripsy, ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of ureteroscopy in children with lower pole renal stones : a machine learning predictive model from the EAU section of endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the results of ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP), shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in pediatric patients with kidney stones 10-20 mm size.
methodsThe files of 159 pediatric patients (36 RIRS, 39 SWL, 84 UMP) with kidney stones were reviewed retrospectively. Preoperative age, sex, stone size and location were evaluated. The three methods were compared in terms of operation and fluoroscopy duration, complications with the modified Clavien grading system, and stone-free rate (SFR) in the postoperative first month.
resultsThe stone burdens of the groups were similar (P = 0.102). At the end of the first month, SFR was higher in the RIRS and UMP groups compared to the SWL group (88.9%, 92.9% and 69.2%, respectively, P = 0.002). UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods (P = 0.042). There was no difference in complications between the three methods (P = 0.758).
conclusionSFR was similar for all three methods in all localizations, apart from lower pole stones. UMP had higher SFR for lower pole stones than the other two methods. There was no difference in terms of complications between the three methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36048242What 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.