Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2024
Failed insertion of ureteral access sheath during flexible ureterorenoscopy: a randomized controlled trial comparing second session flexible ureterorenoscopy or same session mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05911945 (Failed Insertion of Ureteral Access Sheath During Flexible Ureterorenoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Failed Insertion of Ureteral Access Sheath During Flexible Ureterorenoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Second Session Flexible Ureterorenoscopy or Same Session Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a grade-assessed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy assisted by a flexible-tip negative pressure suction sheath for 2-4 cm renal calculi.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare different treatment approaches in patients with failed ureteral access sheath placement during first flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) session.
methodsPatients with kidney stones measuring 1-2 cm, presented to our urology clinic between September 2020 and September 2021, were included in the study for evaluation. The study was designed prospectively (Clinical-Trials number NCT05911945). Patients were randomized into two groups, in case of a failed ureteral access sheath placement during the first f-URS session. In group 1, JJ stent was placed for dilation and second session of f-URS was planned. In group 2, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) was performed in the same session.
resultsTwenty-four patients were included in each group. Pre-operative demographic data and stone characteristics of the patients in each group were comparable. Operation time, fluoroscopy time, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the mini-PNL group. When SF-36 values were compared, physical function, pain, role limitation, and general health value scores were improved in both groups after treatment. The improvement in physical function and pain parameters was statistically significant in the mPNL group. In patients with failed ureteral access sheath placement, placing a JJ stent for dilation and postponing f-URS for 4-6 weeks provides the advantages of low hospitalization time for each admission, shorter fluoroscopy and operation time.
conclusionsPerforming mPNL in the same session, results in better improvements in SF-36 parameters such as pain and physical function compared to f-URS. The success and complication rates of the two procedures were comparable.
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.