Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38873356›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2024

Outcomes and considerations for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the setting of multiple and large renal stones (>15 mm) in children: Findings from multicentre and real-world setting.

Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Vineet Gauhar, Ee Jean Lim, Olivier Traxer, Yesica Quiroz Madarriaga, Daniele Castellani, Khi Yung Fong, Anna Bujons, Deepak Ragoori, Anil Shrestha and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Clinical Medicine University of Bergen Bergen Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4253-1283
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology Ng Teng Fong Hospital Singapore Singapore.
Ee Jean LimDepartment of Urology Singapore General Hospital Singapore Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5242-0651
Olivier TraxerDepartment of Urology Hôpital Tenon Sorbonne University Paris France.
Yesica Quiroz MadarriagaUrology Department Autonomous University of Barcelona, Fundació Puigvert Barcelona Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5087-3756
Daniele CastellaniUrology Division, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti Di Ancona Università Politecnica Delle Marche Ancona Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
Khi Yung FongYong Loo Lin School of Medicine National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8194-0800
Anna BujonsUrology Department Autonomous University of Barcelona, Fundació Puigvert Barcelona Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3995-9329
Deepak RagooriDepartment of Urology Asian Institute of Nephrology and Urology, Banjara Hills Hyderabad India.
Anil ShresthaDepartment of Urology, National Academy of Medical Sciences Bir Hospital Kathmandu Nepal.
Chandra Mohan VaddiDepartment of Urology Preeti Urology and Kidney Hospital Hyderabad India.
Tanuj Paul BhatiaDepartment of Urology Sarvodaya Hospital Sarvodaya Guwahati India.
Cagri Akin SekerciDepartment of Urology Marmara University School of Medicine Istanbul Turkey.
Yiloren TanidirDepartment of Urology Marmara University School of Medicine Istanbul Turkey.
Jeremy Yuen-Chun TeohDepartment of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Centre The Chinese University of Hong Kong Sha Tin Hong Kong, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9361-2342
Bhaskar Kumar SomaniDepartment of Urology University Hospital Southampton Southampton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) in the setting of large or multiple stones in children (<18 years). Materials and Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed of paediatric RIRS cases at nine centres worldwide over a 6-year period. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 had a single stone <15 mm. Group 2 had either multiple stones, maximum stone diameter of >15 mm, or both. Outcomes included stone free rate (SFR) and complications within 30 days. Results: In total, 344 patients were included with 197 and 147 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Ureteric access sheaths were more frequently used in Group 2 (39.5% vs. 56.8%, Conclusions: RIRS can be performed in paediatric cases with large and multiple stone burdens, but the complication rate is significantly higher when compared to smaller stones.

Indexed as

paediatricrenal stoneretrograde intrarenal surgeryureteroscopyurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID38873356
PMCPMC11168767

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.