ArticleScientific reports2024
Micropercutaneous nephrostomy for intervention in acute upper urinary tract calculi obstruction with hydronephrosis and infection.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Urinary tract infection in urolithiasis patients: risk factor analysis, pathogen distribution, and antimicrobial resistance characteristics.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Analysis of Risk Factors and Construction of a Prediction Model for Preoperative Concurrent Pathogenic Pyuria in Patients With Ureteral Calculi.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and advantages of mini percutaneous nephrostomy (MPCN), micropercutaneous nephrostomy (MicroPCN), and retrograde ureteric stenting (RUS) in the treatment of acute upper urinary tract calculi (UUTC) obstruction with hydronephrosis and infection, and verify the safety and indications of clinical application of micropercutaneous nephrostomy. Clinical-epidemiological data of patients with acute upper urinary tract calculi obstruction and infection treated in Ningbo No.2 hospital were retrospectively collected from May 2019 to May 2023. 64 patients (20 patients in MPCN group, 13 patients in MicroPCN group, and 31 patients in RUS group) were eligible for analysis based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There were no significant differences in peri-intervention temperature, multiple infection indicators and complications among the three groups. The nutritional status and peri-intervention coagulation function of patients in MicroPCN and RUS groups were poor, the CRP and proportion of using carbapenem advanced antibiotics were higher. The length of hospital stay and the length of hospital stay after the intervention in MPCN and MicroPCN groups were longer, the length and width of calculi were larger, and the degree of hydronephrosis was heavier. Patients in the MicroPCN group had the worst general condition, the lowest hemoglobin before intervention, the longest withdrawal time of vasoactive drugs. MPCN, MicroPCN, and RUS are safe and effective in relieving acute upper urinary tract calculi obstruction complicated with infection. MicroPCN has more advantages for patients with critical illness or complex obstruction urinary lithiasis.
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.