ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Comparative analysis of retro vs. transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for large renal stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes and complications of retroperitoneal and transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (RLP and TLP, respectively) in the treatment of large kidney stones. In this retrospective cohort effort, data of all patients who underwent laparoscopic pyelolithotomy for renal pelvic stone (N = 273) in three referral urology hospitals were retrieved. Operation duration, length of hospital stay, postoperative stone-free rate, hemoglobin (Hb) and creatinine (Cr) changes and complications were compared between the two groups before and after propensity score matching. A total of 199 TLP and 74 RLP cases were examined. Stone size was significantly higher in the TLP vs. RLP group (29.8 ± 10.9 vs. 26.5 ± 8.8 mm; P = .022). Length of operation and hospital stay were comparable (P = .672 and P = .396, respectively). Rate of conversion to open surgery, postoperative blood transfusion rate, postoperative urinary leakage, postoperative stone-free rate, Hb drop and Cr change were similar between the two groups (P = .348, 0.190, 0.828, 0.411, 0.780 and 0.134, respectively). Postoperative fever was significantly more prevalent in TLP compared to RLP (21.6% vs. 0.0%, respectively; P < .001). Propensity score matched analyses showed similar results in all aspects; particularly demonstrating higher postoperative fever in TLP compared to RLP (18.9% vs. 0.0%, respectively; P < .001). RLP can be considered as an alternative to TLP; especially owing to a lower chance of postoperative fever.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39382752What 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.