Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38818256›Full record

ArticleArab journal of urology2024

Supine tubeless upper pole PCNL under spinal anaesthesia: Safety, feasibility and outcomes from a tertiary endourology centre.

Nitesh Kumar, Bhaskar Somani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of modern urology and greenhouse emissions on the environment and how can we reduce it.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nitesh KumarConsultant Urological Surgeon, Ford Hospital and Research Centre, Patna, India.
Bhaskar SomaniUrology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is being taken up by many urologists in recent times, but there is a tendency to shift to prone PCNL for upper pole puncture. We analyzed the safety, feasibility and outcomes of upper pole access in Supine Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (sPCNL). Materials and methods: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing sPCNL at a tertiary care center was done from January 2021 to December 2022. Data collection was done from the maintained imaging, laboratory and hospital records. All cases with complete data on upper pole access were included. Data analysis was done with Xlstat2021. Results: 50 patients with upper pole access were included (64%, 32 with single access and 36%, 18 with multiple accesses). The mean stone size was 23.88 ± 9.99, mean HU was 1093 ± 232.83, and the mean operative duration was 67.92 ± 34.62. Stone clearance rate was 98.82%, with all procedures performed tubeless.The mean haemoglobin drop was 0.75 ± 0.42 gm/dl with 2 (4%) patients needing a blood transfusion. The overall complication rate was 22% with only 1 Clavien Dindo III complication (1 pleural injury and hydrothorax needing USS guided aspiration) and others being Clavien Dindo I/II complications. Conclusion: Supine PCNL is a feasible and safe approach for upper pole access. While the procedure can be done tubeless, these procedures must be done in experienced endourology units.

Indexed as

kidney calculiPCNLspinalsupineureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID38818256
PMCPMC11136457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.