Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39614229›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2024

Flank-free modified supine vs. prone position for pediatric nephrolithotripsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Breno C Porto, Roberto N Santana, Ingrid M S Duarte, Carlo C Passerotti, Rodrigo A S Sardenberg, Ronaldo S Maia, Jose P Otoch, Jose A S da Cruz

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Breno C PortoSurgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Dr. Arnaldo Ave., 455, São Paulo, SP, 01246903, Brazil.
Roberto N SantanaNinth of July University, Av. Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara, 90, Sao Bernardo do Campo, SP, 09895-400, Brazil.
Ingrid M S DuarteNinth of July University, Av. Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara, 90, Sao Bernardo do Campo, SP, 09895-400, Brazil.
Carlo C PasserottiSurgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Dr. Arnaldo Ave., 455, São Paulo, SP, 01246903, Brazil.
Rodrigo A S SardenbergInternational Teaching and Research Institute - Hapvida NotreDame Intermédica, Paulista Ave, 867, São Paulo, SP, 01418-100, Brazil.
Ronaldo S MaiaSurgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Dr. Arnaldo Ave., 455, São Paulo, SP, 01246903, Brazil.
Jose P OtochSurgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Dr. Arnaldo Ave., 455, São Paulo, SP, 01246903, Brazil.
Jose A S da CruzSurgical Technique and Experimental Surgery Department, University of São Paulo School of Medicine, Dr. Arnaldo Ave., 455, São Paulo, SP, 01246903, Brazil. arnaldoshiomi@yahoo.com.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is widely performed as the preferred treatment for kidney stones larger than 20 mm in pediatric patients, with current research focusing on comparing outcomes between prone and supine positions to determine optimal procedural positioning. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of prone versus supine positioning in pediatric PCNL, providing clarity on this critical aspect of the procedure to guide clinical decision-making.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science and Google Scholar. We included studies that compared PCNL in prone vs supine positions for pediatric patients. Our primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of hospital stay and overall complications rate. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.

resultsWe retrieved 8 articles, with 269 patients in the prone group and 223 patients in the supine group. The mean age of all patients was 7.92 years old. Our findings presented no statistically significant difference in SFR between the two positions (OR 0.67; CI95 0.38, 1.18; p = 0.17; I

conclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that PCNL performed in the prone position is equivalent to supine PCNL in terms of SFR. However, mainly in the RCT studies, we could observe benefits of the supine position in comparison of prone position in terms of lower operative time, as well as a reduced postoperative hospital stay.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiPatient PositioningChildHumansLithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousProne PositionSupine PositionTreatment OutcomePediatricsPercutaneous NephrolithotomyProne positionSupine position

Identifiers

PMID39614229
PMCPMC11607970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.