Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37208652›Full record

Trial reportBMC urology2023

Concerns about stone free rate and procedure events of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) for 2-4 cm kidney stones by standard-PCNL vs mini-PCNL- comparative randomised study.

Mohamed Wishahi, Ahmed El Feel, Amr Elkhouly, Abdullah Fahmy, Mamdouh Roshdy, Ahmed G Elbaz, Ahmed I Kamel, Mohamed Badawy, Khaled Elesaily, Samir Eldahshan and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. A new alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2024
    Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Mohamed WishahiDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt. m.wishahi@tbri.gov.eg.
Ahmed El FeelDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kasr Alaini Medical School, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Amr ElkhoulyDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Abdullah FahmyDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Mamdouh RoshdyDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed G ElbazDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed I KamelDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed BadawyDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Khaled ElesailyDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Samir EldahshanDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Ayman AliDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed MeheinaDepartment of Urology, Theodor Bilharz Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed AbdelwahedDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Kasr Alaini Medical School, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the efficacy and safety of standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with mini- PCNL for kidney stones 2-4 cm.

methodsEighty patients were enrolled in a comparative study, they were randomly divided into mini-PCNL group (n = 40) and standard-PCNL (n = 40). Demographic characteristics, perioperative events, complications, stone free rate (SFR) were reported.

resultsBoth groups showed no significant difference in clinical data about age, stone location, back pressure changes, and body mass index. The mean operative time was (95 ± 17.9 min) in mini-PCNL, and (72.1 ± 14.9 min). Stone free rate were 80% and 85% in mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL respectively. Intra-operative complications, post-operative need for analgesia, hospital stay were significantly higher in standard-PCNL compared to mini-PCNL (85% vs. 80%). The study followed CONSORT 2010 guidelines for reporting parallel group randomization.

conclusionMini-PCNL is an effective and safe treatment of kidney stones 2-4 cm, it has the advantage over standard-PCNL being has less intra-operative events, less post-operative analgesia, shorter hospital stay, while operative time and stone free rate are comparable when considering multiplicity, hardness, and site of stones.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousNephrostomy, PercutaneousHumansLength of StayTreatment OutcomeKidney stonesMini percutaneous nephrolithotomyPercutaneous nephrolithotomyRenal stonesStone free rate

Identifiers

PMID37208652
PMCPMC10199612

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.