ArticleBJUI compass2023
Super-stiff guidewire or loach guidewire during percutaneous nephrolithotomy?
Article in BJUI compass, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objectives of this work are to compare the outcomes between loach guidewire and super-stiff guidewire during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and find potential indications of different guidewires. Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed our institutional PCNL database from 2017 to 2021. Patients who underwent PCNL guided by loach guidewire were assigned to group A (489 patients); patients who received super-stiff guidewire were assigned to group B (269 patients). Preoperative demographic data, intraoperative parameters, and postoperative complications were compared. The conditions and reasons of failed placement of guidewire needed readjustment were evaluated as well. Results: Preoperative demographic data and most intraoperative parameters were not statistically different between the groups. Postoperative Clavien-Dindo complications were also comparable, with low rate of complications. However, failed placement of guidewire more occurred in group A (8.2% vs. 4.0%, respectively, Conclusions: Our results support that the faulty placement of loach guidewire is significantly more common compared with super-stiff guidewire. Double confirmation is needed to prevent a major complication out of wrong dilatation whenever there is doubt about the wrong location of the guidewire.
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.