ArticleBMC urology2024
Clinical comparison of lateral supine position mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and anatrophic nephrolithotomy in the treatment of complete staghorn renal calculi.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt present, the guidelines for urology recommend percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as the preferred treatment for staghorn renal calculi (SRC). However, for complete SRC, it has been questioned by clinicians and patients due to high residual stone rate, complications, repeated hospitalizations and high treatment cost. Anatrophic nephrolithotomy (ANL) is a traditional and classic method for the treatment of SRC. Due to its high trauma and high technical requirements, it is difficult to carry out in primary hospitals, and gradually replaced by PCNL. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of PCNL and ANL in the treatment of complete SRC.
methodsOverall, 238 patients with complete SRC were divided into mini-PCNL in lateral supine position group, (n = 190) and ANL group (n = 94) according to treatment for a retrospective cohort study. The calculi parameters, renal function index, comorbidities of calculi, surgical complications, length and frequency of hospitalization, treatment costs, results of postoperative satisfaction survey were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe risk of the residual stone rate after mini-PCNL in lateral supine position was 239 times (OR = 238.667, P < 0.0001), the number of residual stone 1.3 times (OR = 1.326, P < 0.0001), the amount of residual stone 2.2 times (OR = 2.224, P < 0.0001) that of ANL. The risk of the cost of initial treatment after mini-PCNL in lateral supine position was 3.3 times (OR = 3.273, P < 0.0001), the total cost of treatment 4 times (OR = 4.051, P < 0.0001), the total length of hospital stays 1.4 times (OR = 1.44, P < 0.0001) that of ANL, the incidence of postoperative renal atrophy was 2.2 times (OR = 2.171, P = 0.008) higher in the ANL than in the mini-PCNL in lateral supine position. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) reduction after ANL was 1.4 times (OR = 1.381, P = 0.037) greater than that after mini-PCNL in lateral supine position at 24-month follow-up. The risk of the overall satisfaction of ANL was 58 times (OR = 57.857, P < 0.0001) higher than that of mini-PCNL in lateral supine position, the number of branches of staghorn greater than 8 is a high risk factor for the occurrence of residual stone after mini-PCNL in lateral supine position (OR = 353.137, P < 0.0001).
conclusionAlthough the risk of renal atrophy and decreased GFR after ANL is higher than that of mini-PCNL in lateral supine position, the efficacy of traditional ANL in the treatment of complete SRC was generally superior to that of mini-PCNL in lateral supine position. Moreover, number of branches of staghorn greater than 8 are the preferred ANL for complete SRC.
trial registrationChiCTR2100047462. The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; registration date: 19/06/2021.
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.