ArticleUrolithiasis2023
Analysis of stone-free rates and residual fragment sizes following standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: mistakes in the treatment of non-opaque kidney stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our presented study aimed to evaluate the possible effects of stone opacity, on both the success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and the sizes of residual fragments following the procedure. Medical records of patients undergoing PCNL treatment for kidney stones at our clinic between July 2014 and May 2022 were evaluated in a retrospective manner. A total sample size of 304 patients with the required criteria was included. Patients were divided into two groups based on the radiopacity status of the stones assessed in the kidney-ureter-bladder graphy (KUB) [Group O (n = 211): opaque, Group N (n = 93): non-opaque)]. Demographic data, laboratory results, and surgical follow-up information were comparatively evaluated between groups. The mean age and percentage of female patients were higher in Group N (45.2 vs. 25,1%; p < 0.001). Also, patients in this group were associated with more comorbidities. No significant difference was present regarding stones' laterality, size, surface area, and localization. Cases in the Group N group demonstrated higher median hemoglobin reduction [1.7 (IQR = 1.2-2.5) vs. 2 (IQR = 1.6-2.6); p = 0.047]. The stone-free rates in Group O patients were higher (67.8% vs. 53.8%; p = 0.014). The size of the residual fragments was meaningfully larger in Group N cases [8 (IQR = 7-13) vs. 10 (IQR = 8-16); p = 0.032]. Finally, no significant difference was observed between the groups regarding both minor (as grade 3a and below) and major (grade 3b and above) assessed by the Modified Clavien-Dindo Classification. Our data show that treatment of patients with so-called non-opaque kidney stones by PCNL results in low SFR and larger residual fragments, which is due to a variety of errors that should be avoided by appropriate measures.
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.