Trial reportUrolithiasis2022
The feasibility and safety of one-shot dilatation compared to conventional sequential dilatation in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 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.
- Clinical analysis of ultrasound-guided "tract without bleeding vessel requiring embolization (TBVE)" in reducing bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Comparison of two different tract dilatation techniques in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Amplatz versus balloon.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Comparison between single-shot and gradual dilation technique in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Central European journal of urology · 2025Review
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
To study the feasibility and safety of One-Shot Dilatation (OSD), versus serial sequential dilatation in tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). One Hundred and Fifty patients were randomised into two groups; Group A (One-Shot Dilatation), Group B (Serial Dilatation). Twenty-one patients were excluded from the study. Detailed history was taken and full physical examination was performed. Pre-operative routine laboratory investigations were done. Also, non-contrast Computed Tomography of the Urinary Tract (CTUT) and plain urinary tract x-ray were done. Intra-operative assessments of dilatation, total operative, total fluoroscopy and fluoroscopy during dilatation durations were recorded, as well as estimated blood loss. Post-operatively haemoglobin, creatinine levels and CTUT were performed for all patients. Complications, as urinary leakage time, analgesic requirements and hospitalization time were measured. There were statistically significant differences in the intraoperative durations, where Group A had shorter dilatation time, fluoroscopy time during dilatation and total operative time. Group B had a higher complications rate than Group A; 37.9%, 11.3%, respectively. Also, Group B showed haemoglobin drop by 0.44 mg/dl higher than Group A. More doses of analgesia were required for Group B. Hospitalization time and rate of urinary leakage were both in favour of Group A. For patients undergoing Tubeless PCNL, we have concluded that one-shot dilatation seems to be a safer and more feasible technique than Serial dilatation.
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.