Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36638149›Full record

ArticleInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

A study comparing dusting to basketing for renal stones ≤ 2 cm during flexible ureteroscopy.

NaiKai Liao, ShuTing Tan, ShuBo Yang, GaoQiang Zhai, ChengYang Li, TianYu Li, Yang Chen, LinJian Mo, JiWen Cheng

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

NaiKai LiaoDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
ShuTing TanDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
ShuBo YangDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
GaoQiang ZhaiDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
ChengYang LiDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
TianYu LiDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
Yang ChenDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
LinJian MoDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.
JiWen ChengDepartment of urology, the first affiliated hospital of Guangxi medical university, Nanning, Guangxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the dusting efficiency and safety with basketing for treating renal stones ≤ 2 cm during flexible ureteroscopy (fURS). MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study included 218 patients with renal stones ≤ 2 cm treated with fURS. Among them, 106 patients underwent dusting, and 112 patients underwent fragmentation with basket extraction. All patients were followed up for 3 months postoperatively. The operating time, lasing time, stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rate were compared.

resultsThe mean stone size in the dusting group was 1.3 cm, whereas 1.4 cm in the basketing group. The mean operative time was significantly lower in the dusting group than in the basketing group (43.1±11.7 minutes VS 60.5±13.4 minutes, P < 0.05), but the lasing time was significantly longer for the dusting group than for the basketing group (17.7±3.9 minutes VS 14.1±3.6 minutes, P < 0.05). SFR was significantly higher in the basketing group immediately after the operation and follow-up after 1 month (76.8% vs 55.7%, P= 0.001 and 88.4% vs 78.3%, P = 0.045). However, the SFR was similar for both groups (88.8% in the dusting group vs. 90.2% in the basketing group) after 3 months postoperatively. There was no statistical difference in the complication rates between the two groups.

conclusionsDusting has advantages in shortening the operation time and reducing the operation cost, but the lasing time was longer compared with the basketing. Although there is no difference in long-term effect, basketing is superior to dusting in terms of short-term SFR. Moreover, dusting should be avoided in some special cases and basketing a better choice. Both techniques are effective for the treatment of renal stones ≤ 2 cm and choice depends on patient demographic and stone characteristics.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsy, LaserHumansOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopesUreteroscopyKidney CalculiMinimally Invasive Surgical ProceduresUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID36638149
PMCPMC10247228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.