ArticleScientific reports2025
Therapeutic experience and key techniques of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of size: a systematic review and meta-analysis of tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 2171 adult patients.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of standard vs. tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric populations: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
- Stone displacement with combined Sotn ureteroscopy and flexible ureteroscopy for lower calyx stones ⩽20 mm: a retrospective comparative study.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
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
The tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is highly favored by endourological urologists for its advantages in patient experience and length of hospital stay. However, there is currently no guideline or consensus that precisely describes tubeless PCNL. This study explores tubeless PCNL from two aspects: patient selection and technical improvements. Clinical data of 40 cases of conventional PCNL and tubeless PCNL patients operated by the same surgeon between December 2023 and April 2024 were analyzed. The changes in the preoperative and postoperative renal function, hemoglobin and inflammatory markers were evaluated, and the operative time, pain scores, and length of hospital stay were also included. Both groups of patients achieved complete stone clearance (100%). Compared to the conventional PCNL group, the tubeless PCNL group had lower pain scores (P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stays (P = 0.005). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of operative time (P = 0.83), renal functional impact (P = 0.699), hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.93), and changes in inflammatory markers (P > 0.05). Tubeless PCNL demonstrated better patient experience and shorter hospital stays. Tubeless PCNL patients were strictly selected according to our criteria and operated based on traditional experience and the improved technical standards in this study. Tubeless PCNL is safe and feasible under these conditions. Retrospectively registered: 0620, August, 2024.
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.