Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38340151›Full record

Observational studyUrolithiasis2024

Multicentric evaluation of high and low power lasers on RIRS success using propensity score analysis.

Eren Erol, Gokhan Ecer, Murat Can Kiremit, Mehmet İlker Gokce, Mehmet Balasar, Ahmet Furkan Sarikaya, Muammer Babayigit, Umut Can Karaarslan, Elif Ipek Aksoy, Kemal Sarica and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Eren ErolDepartment of Urology, Meram School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Gokhan EcerDepartment of Urology, Konya State Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Murat Can KiremitDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet İlker GokceDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Mehmet BalasarDepartment of Urology, Meram School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Ahmet Furkan SarikayaDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Muammer BabayigitDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Umut Can KaraarslanDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Koc University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Elif Ipek AksoyDepartment of Urology, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Sancaktepe Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kamran AhmedDepartment of Urology, Meram School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.
Selçuk GüvenDepartment of Urology, Meram School of Medicine, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey. selcukguven@hotmail.com.
Necmettin Erbakan University · TRAnkara University · TRKoç University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of HPL on different parameters by different centers and urologists. While doing this, we evaluated different parameters by comparing HPL(High Power laser) and LPL(Low-power laser). This is an observational, retrospective, comparative, multicentric study of prospectively organised database. A total of 217 patients who underwent RIRS for kidney stones smaller than 2 cm in three different centers were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups; LPL used (Group1, n:121 patients) and HPL used (Group2, n:96). Propensity score matching was done in the data analysis part. After matching, a total of 192 patients, 96 patients in both groups, were evaluated. There was no difference between the groups regarding age, gender, stone side, and stone location. The stone-free rate on the first day was 80.3% in Group 1, it was 78.1% in Group 2 (p = 0.9). In the third month, it was 90.7% in Group 1 and 87.5% in Group 2 (p:0.7).Hospitalization duration was significantly higher in Group 1. (2.35 ± 2.27 days vs. 1.42 ± 1.10 days; p < 0.001).The operation duration was 88.70 ± 29.72 min in Group1 and 66.17 ± 41.02 min in Group2 (p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time (FT) was 90.73 ± 4.79 s in Group 1 and 50.78 ± 5.64 s in Group 2 (p < 0.001). Complications according to Clavien Classification, were similar between the groups(p > 0.05). According to our study similar SFR and complication rates were found with HPL and LPL. In addition, patients who used HPL had lower operation time, hospital stay, and fluoroscopy time than the LPL group. Although high-power lasers are expensive in terms of cost, they affect many parameters and strengthen the hand of urologists thanks to the wide energy and frequency range they offer.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiFemaleHumansLasersMalePropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeFlexible ureterorenoscopyHigh-power laserKidney stoneLow-power laserRetrograde intrarenal surgery

Identifiers

PMID38340151
PMCPMC10858819
OpenAlexW4391721786

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.