ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Clinical study of UMP and RIRS in 1.0-2.0 cm diameter renal/upper ureteral calculi.
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 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experimental and clinical studies: a scoping review of intrarenal pressure in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor for the article "Clinical study of UMP and RIRS in 1.0-2.0 cm diameter renal/upper ureteral calculi".World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Letter to the editor for the article "Patients undergoing double J substitution with a pigtail suture stent report a significant decrease of stent‑related symptoms. Results from a prospective multicenter longitudinal trial".World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP) and Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for renal/upper ureteral calculi in 1.0-2.0 cm diameter.
methodsFrom October 2017 to October 2022, the surgical treatment of patients with renal/upper ureteral calculi in 1.0-2.0 cm diameter who were admitted to our hospital was retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into two groups, the UMP group (sixty-two cases) and the RIRS group (one hundred and nine cases), according to the different surgical methods. Baseline data includes general information, stone size, location, CT value, hydronephrosis, creatinine level, etc.
resultsIntraoperative blood loss was 33.6 ± 8.5 ml in the UMP group was significantly more than 4.3 ± 0.7 ml in the RIRS group (P < 0.05). Intraoperative renal pelvis pressure of UMP group 10.5 ± 1.3 mmHg was significantly lower than RIRS group 23.6 ± 5.6 mmHg (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative infection was higher in the RIRS group (thirteen cases [11.93%]), and one case ([1.61%]) in the UMP group (P < 0.05). Routine CT scans on the second day and two months after surgery showed that the stone clearance rates in the UMP group were 87.1% and 93.5%, respectively, higher than those in the RIRS group (69.7% and 79.8%, respectively; P < 0.05).
conclusionUMP has the advantage of a higher stone-free rate but a higher risk of injury and bleeding. The advantages of RIRS include less trauma, less bleeding, and faster recovery, but lower stone-free rates and a higher risk of infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38869843What 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.