ArticleUrolithiasis2024
The fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments following retrograde intrarenal surgery and factors affecting spontaneous passage.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Residual stone fragments: systematic review of definitions, diagnostic standards.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Prediction model for additional procedure requirement in flexible ureterorenoscopy using explainable artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- The Application of Nanomaterials in Kidney Stone Disease: Emerging Strategies for Early Diagnosis, Targeted Therapy, and Prevention.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Which sucks more? Comparison of two novel direct-in-scope suction ureteroscopes to a conventional ureteroscope.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Comparison of three different scoring systems in predicting success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in kidney stones larger than 20 millimeters.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- First clinical evaluation of a flexible digital ureteroscope with direct in scope suctioning system (Pusen DISS 7.5Ch): prospective multicentric feasibility study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of scoring systems for patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery with isolated lower calyx stones.World journal of urology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The remaining stone fragments after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) can lead to stone recurrence/regrowth, or stone-related events (SRE). We aimed to delineate the clinical circumstances that are decisive for spontaneous passage of clinical insignificant residual fragments (CIRF) (primary outcome) and define risk factors for stone recurrence/regrowth and their clinical manifestation (secondary outcome). A total of 115 patients who had CIRF following RIRS were included in this study. Demographic, clinical data, stone, and anatomic characteristics including infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), infundibular length (IL) and follow-up data of patients were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 27.5 ± 6.9 months. 31 (26.9%) patients passed the CIRF spontaneously. Patients were divided into two groups as spontaneous fragment passage group and fragment remaining group and compared with respect to demographic, clinical, stone-related, and anatomic characteristics. 61.2% of patients had lower pole CIRF in fragment remaining group and 83.3% of patients in spontaneous fragment passage group (p = 0.031). In addition, IPA was wider in spontaneous fragment passage group (60.7° vs 51.4°, p = 0.001). A subanalysis was performed for fragment remaining group. In 84 patients, 44 (52.4%) patients were stable for their CIRF at their follow-up and included in stable group. 40 (47.6%) patients experienced stone re-growth (27 patients) or SRE (13 patients) at their follow up. Patients in re-growth/SRE group were older (49.1 vs 39.4 years, p = 0.047), had higher body mass index (28.2 vs 27 kg/m
Indexed as
Identifiers
38413415What 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.