ReviewArab journal of urology2024
Is ureteroscopy and active stone treatment safe and effective in octogenarians? A review of current literature.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the elderly. is it safe and effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Mortality from ureteroscopy for kidney stone disease: systematic review of literature from the section of EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Between a stone and a hard place-Mortality from conservative management of kidney stone disease: Systematic review of the literature from the European Association of Urology Section of Endourology.Asian journal of urology · 2026Review
- Trends in urolithiasis mortality in the United States, 1999-2024: a Joinpoint regression analysis of age, sex, race, and regional disparities.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the aging of our patient population, and the increasing incidence of kidney stone disease in the elderly, active stone treatment is becoming more common. In this review of current literature, we aim to assess safety and efficacy of ureteroscopy (URS) as primary treatment for urolithiasis in the octogenarians. Materials and methods: A scoping review of literature according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed, using the relevant search terms. Original articles were screened and included. A narrative review of the studies is provided, with emphasis on outcomes of URS in the elderly. Results: 10 studies were included in the analysis. URS performed in the elderly population showed a good safety and efficacy, with stone-free rates (SFR) comparable to the general population. URS specific complication rates seems to be comparable to the other age groups, with postoperative events mostly related to anaesthesia and pre-existing medical conditions. The overall complication rate was still low, with a slightly prolonged hospital stay. Predictors for SFR were age, severe comorbidities and stone burden. Conclusion: URS for stone treatment in the elderly population is safe and effective, with comparable surgical outcomes to that of the general population. As comorbidities play an important role in the fitness for surgery and overall survival, risks and benefit of active stone treatment should be carefully balanced in this group.
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.