ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2024
Randomized control trial to compare mini-PCNL vs standard-PCNL for treatment of 1-2 cm size inferior calyceal renal stone.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Operation time as a prognostic indicator on postoperative complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy.SAGE open medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lower calyceal anatomy makes the stone clearance a difficult task across all treatment formats. Improvement in optics and miniaturization of instruments have offered an effective and safer alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The study was conducted to compare the efficacy and complications associated with mini-PCNL vs standard-PCNL. Methods: The study was a randomized control trial to compare mini-PCNL vs standard-PCNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm inferior calyceal stones. Objectives were to compare peri-operative bleeding, operative-time, post-op analgesia requirement, hospital-stay and stone-free rate at 1 month. Patients with 1-2 cm inferior calyceal stones were included. Morbidly obese individuals, patients with renal malformation and paediatric age group were excluded. Result: One hundred and fifty seven patients were included out of 207 who underwent PCNL in this period. 80 underwent mini-PCNL and 77 standard-PCNL. Mini-PCNL scored over standard in hospital-stay (3.96 vs 4.73 days), post-operative analgesia requirement (2.58 vs 5.55 gms) and drop in Hb (0.59 vs 0.81 gm/dl). Even stone clearance rate was better for mini-PCNL (87.01% vs 93.75%). Mean surgery time was marginally better for standard-PCNL (44.03 vs 43.33 mins). Stone clearance rate and average surgery time were comparable with no statistically significant difference in the two groups. Analgesia requirement was statistically lower in mini-PCNL due to smaller tract and tubeless-PCNL. Hospital stay was statistically lower in mini-PCNL due to lesser post-operative pain. Peri-operative bleeding was statistically lower in mini-PCNL due to smaller track dilatation and lesser tract bleeding. Conclusions: Mini-PCNL is a safe and effective treatment option in the management of 1-2 cm inferior calyceal stones with significantly less bleeding, shorter hospital-stay and analgesia requirement as compared to standard-PCNL with comparable stone clearance rates.
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.