ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Mini-PCNL) for Renal Stones Larger Than 2 cm at a Rural Hospital: A Study Protocol.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Effect of focused nursing training on infection control measures on nurses' practice for patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy.World journal of nephrology · 2026Article
- Evolution of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) from Standard to Miniaturized and Ultra-Mini Techniques: A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Trifecta Outcomes in Standard Versus Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stone Management.Cureus · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is considered a standard treatment option for large-size renal stones but is associated with drawbacks such as bleeding and prolonged recovery. Mini-PCNL offers a less invasive alternative, but its efficacy compared to standard PCNL for renal stones larger than 2 cm remains under debate. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of standard PCNL versus mini-PCNL for renal stone sizes more than 2 cm. Methods This single-centre prospective interventional study will be conducted at Acharya Vinoba Bhave Rural Hospital (AVBRH). The study will include patients 18 to 70 years of age undergoing unilateral PCNL for renal calculi. Patients with renal stones larger than 2 cm will be enrolled. Data on stone-free rate (SFR), operative duration, hospital stay time, surgical site infection, haemoglobin (Hb) drop, need for blood transfusion, and post-surgery fever will be collected and compared between the two procedures. Statistical analysis of data will be performed using descriptive and analytical statistics. Results The study aims to enrol a total of 32 patients. Data analysis will be done using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24 (Released 2016; IBM Corp., Armonk, New York). Conclusion This study will provide valuable insights into the comparative outcome in terms of efficacy and safety of standard PCNL and mini-PCNL for kidney stones larger than 2 cm.
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.