ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of 1-2 cm high hardness single upper ureteral stones: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Successful Treatment with a 6.3-Fr Disposable Digital Flexible Ureteroscope and Holmium Laser Lithotripsy in a 50-Year-Old Man with Large Bilateral Ureteral Stones and Hydronephrosis.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Comparison of the effects of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in patients with upper ureteral impacted stones with infection.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Recommendations for optimizing Urolithiasis treatment protocols: insights into MPCNL and FURL efficacy and safety.Urolithiasis · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (MPCNL) with flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FURL) in the treatment of single upper ureteral stones with a diameter of 1-2 cm and high hardness. This study retrospectively analyzed 89 patients diagnosed with a single upper ureteral stone with a 1-2 cm diameter and a computed tomography value > 1000 Hounsfield units. A propensity score matching system matched this study with factors to minimize the effect of baseline differences between patients. Ultimately, 29 patients in each of the two groups were successfully matched. The stone-free rate was marginally higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (93.10% vs. 86.21%), although the difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.666). Furthermore, the mean operative time in the MPCNL group, although slightly longer than that in the FURL group, did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference (P = 0.833). However, patients in the MPCNL group exhibited a significantly more substantial decrease in hemoglobin than those in the FURL group (P < 0.001) and a substantially more extended postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.001). Regarding perioperative complications, the incidence of moderate pain was higher in the MPCNL group than in the FURL group (P = 0.037). The difference in overall complication rates between the two groups did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.108). MPCNL and FURL are efficacious surgical procedures for treating single upper ureteral stones with a 1-2 cm diameter and high hardness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39402382What 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.