ArticleUrolithiasis2023
A comparative analysis of the efficacy and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy performed in the supine and prone positions for the treatment of pediatric kidney stones: a single-center experience.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of supine versus prone position for pediatric PCNL.International urology and nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Flank-free modified supine vs. prone position for pediatric nephrolithotripsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2024Pooled it
- Supine versus prone pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Arab journal of urology · 2024Review
- 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), which has a smaller tract size (14-20 Fr) than conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy, has been shown to be safe and effective in pediatric patients with large and complex upper urinary tract stones. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of MPCNL between the supine and prone positions in a pediatric population. The data of pediatric patients who underwent MPCNL at our center between January 2010 and March 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the surgical position, the patients were divided into the prone (Group P) and supine (Group S) groups. In both groups, dilatation was performed using 14-18 Fr metallic dilators. The two groups were compared in terms of perioperative data, postoperative stone-free rates (SFRs), and complications. There were 36 (59%) patients in Group P and 25 (41%) patients in Group S. Stones were mostly located in the pelvis (49.2%) and second most frequently in the lower pole (27.9%). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in Group S but did not statistically significantly differ compared to Group P (p = 0.181). However, operation time was statistically significantly shorter in Group S (73.8 ± 35 vs. 99.8 ± 37.4 min, p = 0.008). Although there was no significant difference, relatively higher SFR were detected in Group S (88% vs. 83%, p = 0.725). Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) was performed on six (24%) patients in Group S, and the SFR was 100% among these patients. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the presence of complications (16.7% vs. 16%, p = 0.945). Both supine and prone MPCNL appear to be safe and effective in the pediatric age group, with similar stone-free and complication rates. In the supine procedure, the operation time is shortened compared to the prone. In addition, simultaneous retrograde access has the potential to increase the overall success rate of surgery.
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.