ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Analyzing learning curve for supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in urology resident training programme: comparative analysis.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Learning curves after position switch in PCNL: prone- vs. supine-trained surgeons.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis article attempts to provide a comprehensive review of the learning objectives and importance of the supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) technique. MATERIAL
methodWe retrospectively reviewed the cases of Supine PCNL between January 2018 and January 2024. We divided the groups into 3: residents between 2 and 3 years (Group 1), residents between 4 and 5 years (Group 2), and endourologist (Group 3). The 2-3-year resident started to perform PCNL for the first time, while the 4-5-year resident started to perform Supine PCNL for the first time while previously performing prone PCNL.
resultsAccess, fluoroscopy, and operation time were higher in Group 1, shorter in Group 2, and shortest in Group 3 (p < 0.001). Postoperative length of stay and the need for additional treatment were found to be shorter (p < 0.001), and the stone-free rate (SFR) increased (p < 0.001) from Group 1 to Group 3. The highest complication rates were observed in Group 1 (p = 0.002). SFR rate increased as the number of cases increased in Group 1 patients. Success was stable after 46-60 cases in terms of SFR. In Group 2, the SFR rate was stable after 31-45. CASES: The most complications were observed in Group 1 and the least in Group 3.
conclusionIn 2-3-year residents, access time and fluoroscopy time decrease with experience. In 4-5-year residents, due to their expertise in prone PCNL, the operation time and fluoroscopy time decrease with the number of cases performed. SFR is higher after 46-60 cases for 2-3-year residents and 31-45 cases for 4-5-year residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39249559What 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.