Trial reportWorld journal of urology2023
Comparative study between antegrade flexible ureteroscopy and reterograde intrarenal surgery in the management of impacted upper ureteric stones 1.5 cm or larger.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07362784 (Efficacy And Safety Of Antegrade Uretroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy In The Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stones Measuring > 10 mm In Maximum Dimension. A Randomized Comparative Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 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.
Efficacy And Safety Of Antegrade Uretroscopic Lithotripsy Versus Retrograde Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy In The Treatment Of Upper Ureteric Stones Measuring > 10 mm In Maximum Dimension. A Randomized Comparative Study
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of antegrade ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus retrograde ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteric stones measuring > 10 mm in maximum dimension and/or impacted stones: randomized comparative study.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Successful Treatment with a 6.3-Fr Disposable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in a 50-Year-Old Man with Large Bilateral Ureteral Stones and Hydronephrosis.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a non-invasive nomogram for predicting proximal ureteral impacted calculi.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Can the degree of ureteral stone impaction better predict surgical success and complications? a new classification system.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Analysis of risk factors for urinary tract infection and bleeding after retrograde flexible ureteroscopy for stone removal.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral stones: a retrospective study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- A prospective comparative study between retrograde intrarenal surgery vs supine mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for single upper ureteric stones >10 mm.Central European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stones: A retrospective comparative study.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- A new perspective on the treatment of upper ureteric stones.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively investigate the safety and efficacy of antegrade flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) with the following criteria (supine, ultrasonic guided puncture through lower calyx with 14 fr tract, tubeless) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study recruited 61 patients with single large impacted upper ureteric stone of ≥ 1.5 cm. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups. Group A, included 31 patients who treated by antegrade FURS, all patients were put in supine modified galadako Valdivia position and the renal access is reached by ultrasonic guided puncture through the lower calyx with dilatation upto 14 fr to insert ureteric access sheath and all cases were tubless with JJ stent insertion. Group B, included 30 patients who were treated by RIRS with JJ stent insertion. Stone fragmentation was done by holmium laser in both group.
resultsGroup A was significantly associated with higher proportion of SFR (90.3%) compared to Group B (70%) (p = 0.046). Group B was significantly associated with shorter operative time and fluoroscopy time in comparison with Group A (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between studied groups regarding bleeding (p = 0.238). Urosepsis showed significantly higher proportion associated with retrograde approach when compared to antegrade approach (p = 0.024).
conclusionThis study showed that antegrade FURS is safe and more effective than RIRS for the management of large impacted upper ureteric stones ≥ 1.5 cm.
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.