ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Cumulative sum analysis of the learning curve for retrograde intrarenal stone surgery in newbie surgeons.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evolution of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comprehensive meta-analysis of suction-assisted versus conventional techniques against mini-PCNL for 2-3 cm renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the learning curve for flexible ureteroscopic thulium fiber laser lithotripsy using CUSUM analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study investigated the learning curve of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in patients with medium-sized stones using cumulative sum analysis (CUSUM) to evaluate the competence and proficiency of three new surgeons during their first RIRS procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 227 patients from 2019 to 2022 at a single institution. The patients were divided into four groups based on the operating surgeon: tutor surgeon (85 patients), newbie surgeon A (21 patients), newbie surgeon B (85 patients), and newbie surgeon C (36 patients). Patients had one or multiple stones with the largest stone diameter fell within the range of 10-30 mm. Fragmentation efficacy was calculated as "removed stone volume (mm3) divided by operative time (minutes)." CUSUM analysis monitored changes in fragmentation efficacy and validated surgical outcomes.
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed in the total stone volume, maximum stone size, or total operation time between the three newbie surgeons and the tutor surgeon. The mean fragmentation efficacy value was comparable among the newbie surgeons, but significantly different from that of the tutor surgeon. The minimum acceptable fragmentation efficacy level was set at 25.12 mL/min, based on the tutor's average value. The CUSUM curves for the three surgeons initially remained relatively flat until Cases 12-15, after which they increased and eventually plateaued. Stone-free rates and postoperative complications did not differ significantly among the surgeons.
conclusionLearning curve analysis for the three newbie surgeons indicated that approximately 12-15 cases were required to reach a plateau.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38668858What 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.