ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2022
Prevalence of the Retro-Renal Colon: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Implications for Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: From percutaneous nephrolithotomy to the future of stone management.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Review
- Outcomes and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy as primary versus secondary procedure for kidney stones: a prospective cohort study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Article
- Global Needs and Barriers for Medical Research Education: Initiatives to Solve the Physician-Scientist Shortage.International journal of medical students · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the prevalence of the retrorenal colon (RRC) and its implications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy with the overall objective of promoting the prevention of associated iatrogenic complications. Methods: A systematic search of literature was conducted on the electronic databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Hinari to identify studies eligible for inclusion. Search results were screened by title and abstract, and those potentially relevant were evaluated by full text. Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they reported clear extractable data regarding the prevalence of the retro-renal colon. A meta-analysis was completed using MetaX1 to calculate the pooled prevalence of the retro-renal colon. Sub-group analysis was performed based on geographical regions from which the studies originated, imaging modality, and patient position. Results: 174 records were screened and a total of 10 records included in the analysis with retrospective cohort studies being the most common study design. A male predominance was seen in most sample sizes that had reported data on gender demographics ranging from 41.5-62%. The most common imaging modality utilized was computerized tomography (CT) scan followed by ultrasound. The range of the unweighted prevalence of retro-renal colon across all studies that had absolute numbers reported was from 3.5-25%. One of the studies reported a colonic perforation rate of 0.3% in patients without CT images. Conclusion: The retro-renal colon is a relatively common finding with observed preponderance to females and left lateralization. The presence of RRC increases the likelihood of colon perforations while gaining percutaneous access to the kidney. Pre-procedural imaging can help detect its presence and choose an appropriate route of entry. USG and CT have both been found useful as a modality to pick up RRC.
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.