ArticleBMC urology2023
What is the safe and effective dilator number during access in PCNL? Three-shot dilation versus classical sequential Amplatz dilation.
Article in BMC urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough PCNL has been used for a long time to treat nephrolithiasis, there is still contradictory information concerning the use of the dilation method. In this study, we aimed to compare conventional sequential Amplatz dilatation (SAD) using ten dilators and a method using three dilators (12, 20, and 30 Fr), which we named "three-shot dilatation" (3SD), in terms of fluoroscopy time (FT), operation time, bleeding and stone-free rates.
methodsThe study included patients who underwent PCNL with the SAD and 3SD methods. A different surgeon with extensive endourology experience applied each technique. One of the surgeons operated on the patients using the SAD method with ten dilators, and the other surgeon performed the operations using the 3SD method involving three Amplatz dilators (12, 20, and 30 Fr).
resultsA total of 283 patients, 138 in the 3SD group and 145 in the SAD group, were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 47.32 ± 13.71 years. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding preoperative characteristics (p > 0.05). The FTs of access 2, total access, and total operation were significantly shorter in the 3SD group (p = 0.0001). The decrease in hemoglobin was statistically significant in the 3SD group compared to the SAD group (p = 0.022), while the blood transfusion requirements of the groups were similar (p = 0.176). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding stone-free rates (p = 0.973). In four patients in the SAD group, re-access was necessary due to the loss of passage due to the guide wire slipping out of its place.
conclusionIntraoperative FT can be shortened using the described 3SD method without compromising surgical safety. However, this method can be used as an intermediate step in the transition to one-shot dilation by surgeons experienced in performing SAD.
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.