Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39585477›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Can suction technology be a potential game changer that reshapes pediatric endourological interventions? Results from a scoping review.

Vineet Gauhar, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Olivier Traxer, Carlotta Nedbal, David Ka-Wai Leung, Ivan Ching Ho Ko, Nariman Gadzhiev, Bhaskar Somani, Daniele Castellani, Kemal Sarica

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pediatric Endourology Advances.Current urology reports · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Steffi Kar Kei YuenDepartment of Urology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Olivier TraxerDepartment of Urology AP-HP, Sorbonne University, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.
Carlotta NedbalUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Delle Marche, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Conca 71, Ancona, 60126, Italy.
David Ka-Wai LeungDepartment of Urology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Ivan Ching Ho KoDepartment of Urology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, China.
Nariman GadzhievUrology Department, Saint-Petersburg State University Hospital, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.
Bhaskar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Daniele CastellaniUrology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Delle Marche, Università Politecnica Delle Marche, Via Conca 71, Ancona, 60126, Italy. castellanidaniele@gmail.com.
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Medical School, Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review the use of suction/vacuum-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in children/adolescents with kidney stones.

methodsThe PICOS model (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) was used to frame and answer the clinical question; P: children and adolescent men with kidney stones; I: use of suction during PCNL or RIRS; C: no suction devices or none; O: complications and stone-free rate (SFR); S: prospective and retrospective studies; case reports. The literature search was performed on 14th May 2024 using Embase, PubMed, and Scopus. Only English papers were accepted.

resultsTen articles were included. There were 9 papers on mini-PCNL and the remaining one compared mini-PCNL with RIRS. PCNL studies found excellent SFR (73-100%) with zero transfusion rate and a low rate of infectious complications (fever up to 9.6% and sepsis rate of 1%). Among these studies, there was a case report on the use of shock pulse lithotripter with complete stone clearance.

conclusionsOur review shows that there is little data on the use of suction/vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL/RIRS in kidney stone children/adolescents. However, these preliminary data demonstrated that vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL had excellent SFR with a low rate of complications.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousAdolescentChildHumansSuctionChildrenFlexible and navigable ureteral access sheathFlexible ureteroscopyKidney stonesPercutaneous nephrolitotripsySuction

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.