ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2022
Evaluation of mini-PCNL and RIRS for renal stones 1-2 cm in an economically challenged setting: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of outcomes in kidney stone management: stone-free rate vs. cost vs. quality of life: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Retrograde Intrarenal Renal Surgery versus Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy in Treatment of Renal Pelvic Stones Less than 2 cm, Randomized Clinical Study.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Flexible Ureteroscopy with a Tip-bendable Suction Ureteral Access Sheath Versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Treatment of 2-3-cm Renal Stones: Study Protocol for an International, Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel-group, Noninferiority Trial.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Percutaneous nephrolithotomy or flexible ureteral lithotripsy, which one is better for patients with upper ureteral calculi of 1.5-2.0 cm in diameter.BMC urology · 2024Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) are viable options for the treatment of renal calculi 1-2 cm. Both have their pros and cons, but also vary in costs. We aimed to evaluate them in an economically challenged setting. Methods: Two-hundred-seventy-one patients who underwent mPCNL (120) or RIRS (151) for renal calculi 1-2 cm were recruited in the study. Cases were comparatively statistically analyzed for differences in patient and stone parameters, duration of operation and hospital stay, and clinical outcomes such as stone free rate and complications. Local costs were calculated compared. Results: Patient and stone parameters did not differ for both procedures. Stone free rate was slightly higher for mPCNL, and significantly higher in the lower pole. Hospitalization was shorter for RIRS, but operation times did not differ significantly. Neither did the complication rates. There was a significantly higher Hb drop for mPCNL, but that did not translate in a significantly higher transfusion rate. Conclusion: Given the fact that all parameters were very similar or not statistically significant, choosing and the option comes down to other factors, such as availability of methodology and infrastructure, availability of surgical competence, surgeon's preference, and patient's preference. Both mPCNL and RIRS, are viable, safe, and efficient options for the treatment of renal stones 1-2 cm in size. mPCNL is the more cost-effective option and therefore should be considered if minimally invasive treatment is endeavored in economically challenged countries.
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.