ArticleUrolithiasis2023
Which position is more advantageous for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: supine or prone?
Article in Urolithiasis, 2023. 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.
- Prone vs supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does position affect renal pelvic pressures?Urolithiasis · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be performed in a number of different positions. Our aim was to evaluate the convenience and advantages of the supine position following the transition from the prone to the supine position. 94 patients undergoing supine PNL (Group-1) and 93 patients undergoing prone PNL (Group-2) were retrospectively reviewed and included in the study. Patients who underwent mini-PNL (mPNL) were selected from Group-1 and Group-2 and divided into Group-1A supine mPNL patients (77) and Group-2A prone mPNL patients (53). Demographic characteristics, operative data and post-operative parameters were compared between these groups. The operation time was 74.4 ± 21.9 min in Group-1A and 79.2 ± 19.8 min in Group-2A (p = 0.076). The median value of fluoroscopy time was 30 s in Group-1A and 40 s in Group-2A (p = 0.003). In Group-1A, 59 patients had no intraoperative double-J stent (DJS) insertion and 18 patients had DJS insertion, while in Group-2A, 24 patients had no DJS insertion and 29 patients had DJS insertion (p < 0.001). MPNL was performed in 81.9% of patients in the supine position and 57% in the prone position. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found with regard to the success rate and the complications of mPNL. Fluoroscopy time is shorter in the supine position. Moreover, the insertion rates of DJS are low. With increasing experience, we have found that our standard PNL (sPNL) rate is gradually decreasing and more mPNL is being performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37578662What 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.