Trial reportANZ journal of surgery
Standard v mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine modified lithotomy position: a randomized pilot study on 10-25 mm stones.
Trial report in ANZ journal of surgery. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the recommended treatment for stones >2 cm in size. The majority of PCNL are still conducted with larger telescopes using tracts up to 30F in size. We have conducted a randomized pilot study comparing mini PCNL with our standard 22F PCNL for renal stones between 10 and 25 mm in diameter.
methodsPatients were randomized to either PCNL (24F Amplatz sheath/22F nephrosocope) or mini PCNL (18F Amplatz sheath/11F nephroscope). All operations were performed in the modified supine position. Patients were reviewed with imaging to assess stone clearance and complications.
resultsEighteen well matched patients were randomized. All procedures were completed as planned and all were tubeless with no complications. There were no differences in operative time, analgesia requirements or length of stay. Seven of nine (77.75%) standard PCNL were completely stone free at CT review with a 2 mm and a 5 mm fragments in the other patients. Four (44.4%) of the mini PCNL group were stone free, with stone fragments 4-10 mm remaining in the others. 40 patients/arm would be required for an adequately powered study.
conclusionThere was no advantage in using mini PCNL compared to our standard 24F PCNL in this pilot study. There may be benefits in using mini PCNL compared to the more widely used 30F PCNL and it may be a more cost-effective alternative to laser pyeloscopic stone procedures.
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.