ReviewCentral European journal of urology2024
Regional versus general anaesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of total tubeless mini-PCNL in the management of renal stones: prospective observational study.BMC urology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Several studies have compared the safety and effectiveness of general and regional anaesthesia in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aimed to compare the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of general anaesthesia and regional anaesthesia for patients undergoing PCNL. Material and methods: For relevant articles, three electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched from their inception until March 2023. A meta-analysis has been reported in line with PRISMA 2020 and AMSTAR Guidelines. The risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) were applied for the comparison of dichotomous and continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: The final cohort analysis, comprised 3871 cases of PCNL, (2154 regional anaesthesia and 1717 general anaesthesia). Compared to general anaesthesia, the regional anaesthesia group had a significantly shorter length of stay (MD = -0.34 days, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.12, p = 0.002), lower postoperative nausea and vomiting rates (RR = 0.16, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.80, p = 0.026), lower complications grade III-V rates (RR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.88, p = 0.004), and lower postoperative visual analogue pain score (VAS) at 1 hour (MD = -3.5, 95% CI -4.1 to -2.9, p <0.001). There were no significant differences in other outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: Our results show that PCNL under regional anaesthesia is safe and feasible, with comparable results to those done under general anaesthesia. While patient selection is important, counselling and decision-making for these procedures must go hand in hand to achieve the best clinical outcome.
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.