ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Retrospective study of single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Actively extracting kidney stones combined dusting technique can improve SFR of moderate-complexity kidney stones in fURL.International urology and nephrology · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeRetrospective analysis was performed on the clinical information of patients with 1.5-2.5 cm lower pole renal stones treated by single-use digital flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in affiliated hospital of the Nantong University from January 2020 to December 2022. To compare the safety and efficacy of single-use fURS and MPCNL in the treatment from 1.5cm to 2.5cm lower pole renal stones.
methodsClinical information of 141 patients were collected and divided into single-use fURS group and MPCNL group according to their treatment methods, including 83 patients in the single-use fURS group and 58 patients in the MPCNL group. Baseline data, data on the clinical characteristics of stones, laboratory examination data, operation time, and postoperative data of the two groups were collected. Statistical analysis was made on the collected data to analyze the differences and causes between the two groups of patients.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the baseline data and preoperative clinical features of 141 patients between the two groups (P > 0.05). In comparison of postoperative serum indexes, the drop values of hemoglobin and creatinine in single-use fURS group were lower than those in MPCNL group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The stone free rate was higher in the MPCNL group than in the single-use fURS group on the first day after surgery. At the 1st month after surgery, the two groups were similar. At 3rd month after surgery, the single-use fURS group was slightly higher than the MPCNL group, with no statistical significance (P > 0.05). The total complication rate in single-use fURS group was slightly lower than that in MPCNL group, but there was no statistical significance (P > 0.05).
conclusionsSingle-use fURS has similar safety and efficacy to MPCNL in the treatment of 1.5-2.5cm lower pole renal stones. Single-use fURS may be a new option for the treatment of these stones.
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.