ArticleCentral European journal of urology2023
Treatment of 2-4 cm kidney stones: multicentre experience. Comparison of safety, efficacy, and costs of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evolution of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comprehensive meta-analysis of suction-assisted versus conventional techniques against mini-PCNL for 2-3 cm renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Retrograde Intrarenal Renal Surgery versus Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy in Treatment of Renal Pelvic Stones Less than 2 cm, Randomized Clinical Study.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Flexible ureteroscopy under local anesthesia for 2-4 cm renal stones: FANS outperforms traditional sheaths.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy, through the stone-free rate (SFR), as well as the costs, between retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), for 2-4 cm kidney stones. Material and methods: We analysed the data relating to RIRS and PCNL performed in 3 reference centres for kidney stones, in the period between 1/2019 and 12/2021. The total number of procedures was 130 (63 RIRS and 67 PCNL). We defined SFR as the absence of lithiasic fragments or stones <3 mm. Results were compared between 2 groups depending on the stone size: 2-3 cm stones (group 1) and >3 cm stones (group 2). Results: The duration of RIRS was 90 minutes for group 1 and 115 minutes for group 2, and for PCNL it was 135 minutes for group 1 and 145 minutes for group 2. RIRS had shorter duration with a significant difference in group 1 (p = 0.000014). SFR for RIRS was 78% for group 1 and 21% for group 2, and for PCNL it was 92% for group 1 and 81% for group 2. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference, which is more evident for 3 cm and multiple stones (p = 0.0057 for group 1, p = 0.000146 for group 2). The difference in costs was estimated by calculating the expected costs for a single surgical procedure and the estimated cost per day for ordinary hospitalization. Conclusions: 2-4 cm stones can be safely treated with both RIRS and PCNL, but RIRS should not be chosen as an option for stones >3 cm, except in selected cases. PCNL remains the gold standard for the treatment of complex stones, especially for stones >3 cm. Risk of postoperative complications is higher in PCNL, even if this difference is not great. The costs associated with RIRS, even when recalculating with the need for new treatments, remain cheaper.
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.