ReviewCurrent urology reports2023
Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones - Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?
Review in Current urology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ureteroscopy and lasertripsy for lower pole stones <2 cm, in situ vs displacement? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of infundibulopelvic angle on outcomes of ureteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Infundibulopelvic angle assessment: non-contrast computed tomography vs. traditional methods.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Comparison of clinical effectiveness and safety of 272 µm and 365 µm holmium lasers in retrograde intrarenal surgery.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Stone-free rate of laser lithotripsy for large pediatric stones: 15-year experience from a tertiary endourology pediatric center.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Standardized lower pole renal pelvicalyceal system measurement: a semi-autonomous approach from EAU Endourology.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewSmall renal stones in the lower pole are often difficult to treat. The angle of the lower pole to the renal pelvis (lower pole angle) is a limiting factor to rendering the patient stone free. This review explores the definitions of the lower pole angle, the various treatment options available, and how outcomes are influenced by the angle. RECENT
findingsIt is clear the lower pole angle definition varies widely depending on described technique and imaging modality. However, it is clear that outcomes are worse with a steeper angle, especially for shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has similar reported outcomes to RIRS, and there is limited evidence it may be superior for steeper angles over RIRS. Lower pole stones can be technically challenging and adequate assessment prior to choosing operative approach is key.
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.