ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Clinical Outcomes and Safety Assessment of Flexible Ureteroscopy as an Outpatient Procedure: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.
Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outpatient versus inpatient flexible ureteroscopy with flexible and navigable suction access sheath: A multicenter comparative analysis of perioperative outcomes from the flexible and navigable access sheath collaborative study group.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- The Role of Inflammatory Biomarkers in Predicting Postoperative Fever Following Flexible Ureteroscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nephrolithiasis, or kidney stone disease, is a significant global health issue in urology, requiring effective management strategies. The management of nephrolithiasis through flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is increasingly gaining acceptance; however, it is associated with significant costs related to consumables, pharmacotherapy, specialized equipment, and general anesthesia (GA). Limited resources and the need to optimize the cost effectiveness ratio have driven the shift to day-case procedures, offering financial and operational benefits and improving patient satisfaction. This outpatient care approach addresses clinical and economic challenges. For same-day discharge, spinal anesthesia (SA) is essential for fURS, as GA does not permit safe immediate discharge. This retrospective study investigates the feasibility of same-day discharge following fURS procedures performed under SA. Analyzing data from 401 patients who underwent 414 fURS procedures between January 2020 and December 2023, this study aims to evaluate whether same-day discharge is a viable option compared to conventional fURS under GA. The primary objectives are to assess the outcomes, including efficacy, stone-free rate (SFR), pain management, and complication rates, in the context of same-day discharge. Additionally, this study seeks to identify patient and kidney stone characteristics that may influence the suitability of one-day fURS under SA. Outcomes will be measured using the Dindo-Clavien (D-C) classification and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores post-procedure.
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.