ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Comparison of safety and efficacy of tubeless vs. conventional mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with Escherichia coli bacteriuria.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in patients with Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteriuria. We conducted a retrospective review of 84 patients with E. coli bacteriuria who underwent PCNL. Patients were divided into two groups according to whether a nephrostomy tube is placed at the end of the procedure. Preoperative clinical data, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were compared. Then, regression analysis of factors predicting success rate of PCNL in patients with E. coli bacteriuria was performed. After PCNL, residual fragments ≤ 4 mm were considered as success. At baseline, the two groups were similar with regard to age, gender, BMI, underlying disease, hydronephrosis, stone characteristics, and urinalysis. Postoperative fever occurred in 1 patient (3.8%) in the tubeless PCNL group, and in 5 patients (8.6%) in the conventional PCNL group (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of successful rate, decrease in hemoglobin, pain scores, blood transfusion, and hospitalization expenses. However, the tubeless PCNL group had significantly shorter operative time (60 vs. 70 min, p = 0.033), indwelling time of catheter (2 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001), and hospital stays (3 vs. 5 days, p < 0.001) than the conventional PCNL group. In the analysis of factors predicting success, the stone diameter, stone burden, and operative time were associated with success rate of PCNL. It is safe and effective to perform tubeless PCNL in patients with E. coli bacteriuria. Compared to conventional PCNL, tubeless PCNL accelerates patient recovery and shortens hospital stays.
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.