ArticleUrolithiasis2023
Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1-2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- RIRS vs PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones: a comparative clinical outcome study.Future science OA · 2026Article
- Comparison of outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal calculi measuring one to two centimeters.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Impact of prior shock wave lithotripsy on outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for 1-2 cm lower pole kidney stones: a comparative analysis by the EAU-YAU Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based prediction of stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal stones.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- [Stones in the lower pole and their treatment].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- In the Treatment of Lower Pole Kidney Stones Between 1-2 cm in Children, Which is the Best Approach? Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery or Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2024Article
- Flexible ureteroscopy for lower pole calculus: is it still a challenge?World journal of urology · 2023Review
- The Prime Time for Flexible Ureteroscopy for Large Renal Stones Is Coming: Is Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy No Longer Needed?Urology research & practice · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of medium-sized (1-2 cm) lower poles renal stone has been a contentious topic for endourologists. There are limited evidences to answer the best management options for medium-sized lower pole renal stone. This network meta-analysis provided high-level evidences on efficacy and safety of profile of PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, RIRS, Micro-PCNL, SWL for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. Systemic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials was conducted. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) approach was used to look for relevant studies. Searches were conducted at major electronic databases like Medline via PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to find relevant articles from the inception to April 19, 2023. Fourteen randomized control trials involving 2194 patients were among these studies that met the eligibility criteria. Pooled SFR was Mini-PNCL 98% (95% CI 96-99%), Ultara-PCNL 96% (95% CI 93-98%), RIRS 90% (95% CI 88-92%), PCNL 88% (95% CI 85-92%), Micro-PCNL 77% (61-88%) and SWL 69% (95% CI 65-74%). Mini-PCNL provided a statistically significant higher SFR compared to RIRS (RR = 2.43 91.52; 3.89)), Micro-PCNL (RR = 3.19 (1.09; 9.38)), and SWL (RR = 6.17 (3.65; 10.44)), but there was no statistical significance with standard PCNL (RR = 1.06 (0.52; 2.16)) and Ultra-PCNL (RR = 1.37 (0.75; 2.51)) for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. The order of SUCRA values for complication rate was as follows: PCNL(90%), Micro-PCNL(70%), Mini-PCNL(50%), Ultra-PCNL(50%), RIRS(40%), and SWL(10%). The current pooled evidence from fourteen randomized control trials revealed that Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, and standard PCNL are likely the best treatments for medium-sized lower poles when SFR over a short period of minimal session is a priority. These treatment options have a higher rate of complications, longer hospital stays, and acceptable operations time. RIRS and SWL treatment have acceptable efficacy stone-free rate with low complication rate, short hospital stays, and operation time. These treatment option would be the best fit for solitary kidney, coagulopathy, and comorbidity.
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.