ArticleUrology annals
The safety and efficacy of ultrasound versus fluoroscopic percutaneous nephrostomy: A prospective randomized study.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the outcome of percutaneous nephrostomy by ultrasound (US) versus fluoroscopy including access time, volume of anesthesia required, success rate, and complications. Methods: One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective randomized study. Patients were divided into two groups, 50 cases each. Comparing the two groups was done regarding the need for dye, radiation effect, time taken, trial number, rate of complication, volume of anesthesia, and success rate. Results: Patient demographics were comparable between both groups with no statistically significant difference. According to the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, the complications were Grade I (pain and mild hematuria) in each group. Procedural pain was present in 41 (82%) patients in Group I and in 48 (96%) patients in Group II. It was treated in both groups with a simple analgesic. Mild hematuria was present in 5 (10%) patients in the US group and 13 (26%) in the fluoroscopic group and treated by hemostatic drugs only. There was a statistically significant difference between both groups regarding the volume of required local anesthesia, the trial numbers, the puncture numbers, bleeding, extravasation, and change in the hemoglobin level. Conclusion: US percutaneous renal access is a safe and effective modality with a high success rate, less operative time, and complication rate. However, a minimum of 50 cases with some pelvicalyceal system dilation may be preliminary requisites to achieve good orientation and competence in achieving safe US percutaneous renal access for future endourological procedures.
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.