ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Comparison of radiation exposure for interventional radiology vs urology-guided renal access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2025. 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.
- Advantages of upper calyx puncture in mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: a retrospective comparative analysis.World journal of urology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiation exposure during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) can vary depending on the method used for renal access. This study aimed to compare fluoroscopy time and dose during PCNL when renal access is achieved via interventional radiology (IR) versus urology.
methodsA retrospective review of patients who underwent unilateral PCNL between January 2020 and February 2023 was conducted. Patients were categorized by renal access method: endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery performed by a urologist (ECIRS) or IR-assisted. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test and multivariate analyses were done to compare several parameters of the two groups.
results66 patients underwent ECIRS (group 1), and 31 underwent IR-assisted access (group 2). The groups were similar in age, BMI, sex, and stone size. The difference in medians for fluoroscopy dose, fluoroscopy time, operative time and length of stay were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Average fluoroscopy dose (39.6 vs. 327 mGy) and time (1.46 vs. 10.9 min), along with average operative time (1.97 vs. 3.00 h) and length of stay (1.26 vs 3.06 days) were all lower in group 1. In the IR group, a positive correlation was noted between BMI and fluoroscopy dose (p < 0.001), though this correlation was absent with ECIRS.
conclusionsPCNL with ECIRS access significantly reduces radiation exposure and operative time compared to IR-assisted access. Additionally, BMI influenced radiation exposure and operative time in the IR group, but not in the ECIRS group. Endoscopic renal access may lower overall radiation exposure and postoperative complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39833498What 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.