ArticleScientific reports2024
No ureteral catheter mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (NUC-mPCNL) achieves enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS).
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 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.
- Retrograde ureteral catheterization in percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be omitted in selected patients: a randomized controlled trial.Urolithiasis · 2026Trial
- Artificial intelligence-based prediction of stone-free status in patients undergoing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy without retrograde insertion of a ureteral catheter.World journal of urology · 2026Observational
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
Abstract
Conventional mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) typically necessitates the pre-operative placement of ureteral catheters. With the development of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), we introduce a novel approach: no ureteral catheter mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (NUC-mPCNL). To evaluate the efficacy and safety of this innovative procedure compared to mPCNL, we compared the total operative time, stone clearance rate (SCR), stone-free rate (SFR), and complications among patients undergoing either modality from January to September 2021. Our findings revealed a statistically significant reduction in the mean total operative time for the NUC-mPCNL group (42.6 ± 2.4 vs. 60.2 ± 3.4 min, p < 0.001). The SCR, SFR and CSFR were comparable between two groups (98.5% vs. 97.8%, 84.3% vs. 76.0%, 64.7% vs. 60.0%, p = 0.337, 0.295, 0.625). WBC rise, hemoglobin drop and neutrophil percentage rise were similar in both groups. The overall complication rate in the NUC-mPCNL group was lower; however, the difference was not statistically significant (Clavien I, II and III; 11 vs. 13, 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 1). Consequently, we conclude that NUC-mPCNL effectively shortens the operative time and holds potential for expedited postoperative recovery.
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.