ArticlePediatric surgery international2023
Is laparoscopic pyelolithotomy an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of kidney stones larger than 2.5 cm in pediatric patients?
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guidelines on the management of pediatric urolithiasis.Urolithiasis · 2024Guideline
- The experience of a tertiary referral center with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones during 18 years.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Comparative Analysis of Surgical Outcomes of Flexible Ureteroscopy and Da Vinci Robotic Surgery in Community Patients with Renal Pelvic Stones Larger than 2 cm.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim was to compare laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in terms of efficacy and safety for the treatment of renal pelvis stones larger than 2.5 cm in pediatric patients.
methodsOur study consisted of two groups. Group 1 included 33 patients who underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) between January 2013 and March 2022, and group 2 included 39 patients who underwent percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The basic clinical parameters of the patients were recorded. Mean operation time, stone size, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion rate, postoperative hospital stay, stone-free rate, postoperative analgesia requirements, intraoperative complications, and early and late postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsIn our study, the mean age of the patients in groups 1 and 2 was 8.89 ± 1.58 years and 9.1 ± 1.85 years, respectively (p = 0.657). The mean stone size was 2.37 ± 0.38 cm in group 1 and 2.55 ± 0.45 cm in group 2 (p = 0.64). The mean operation time was 85.65 ± 20.55 min in group 1, while it was 76.11 ± 13.12 min in group 2 (p = 0.08). The stone-free rate was 100% in both groups. Intraoperative mean blood loss, need for postoperative analgesia, blood transfusion and intraoperative complication rates were significantly higher in the PCNL group (p < 0.01, p = 0.02, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, respectively).
conclusionOur results show that laparoscopic pyelolithotomy is a safe and effective method for pediatric patients with large kidney stones.
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.