ArticleScientific reports2023
The experience of a tertiary referral center with laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones during 18 years.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative analysis of retro vs. transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones.Urolithiasis · 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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, including its efficacy and feasibility in treatment of large renal stones. All patients who underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy operations in a referral center were enrolled from 2003 to 2020. The final analysis included 436 patients. The total stone free rate was 88.3% and the stone-free rate for staghorn/multiple stones versus other types of stones was 81% vs. 91% (P = 0.002). Likewise, the total operation duration was 158 ± 50 and the operation duration for staghorn/multiple stones versus other types of stones was 171 ± 51 min vs. 153 ± 49 min (P < 0.001). The operation duration (169 ± 51 vs. 155 ± 58 vs. 155 ± 42 min) and hospitalization (4.5 ± 2.3 vs. 4.0 ± 2.2 vs. 3.6 ± 1.8) decreased with increasing the surgeons' experience over time. The outcomes of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for children versus adults versus geriatric patients and in patients with normal versus abnormal kidney anatomy did not reveal statistically significant differences. Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy could be employed as an alternative surgical approach for patients with large kidney stones of any age or with kidney abnormalities provided that appropriate expertise is available to carry out the procedure.
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.