ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2025
Neglected giant bladder stone with bilateral ureteral stones: A case report of staged surgical treatment.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and importanceA giant bladder stone is a rare urological condition in which a massive stone forms due to various contributing factors. We present a rare case of a giant bladder stone with concurrent ureteral stones, detailing its staged surgical management and relevant literature. CASE PRESENTATION: A 44-year-old male presented with right flank, left flank, and suprapubic pain for one month prior to admission, accompanied by dysuria and a history of stones passage through the urinary tract. On examination, the patient presented with suprapubic pain, and laboratory results revealed severe anemia with elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and serum creatinine levels. A vesicolithotomy was performed, followed by ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URS) one month later. A 15 × 10 cm bladder stone was found during the first surgery, and multiple ureteral stones were discovered during the second surgery. After surgery, the patient improved BUN (93.5 mg/dL to 27.6 mg/dL), serum creatinine (8.11 mg/dL to 1.85 mg/dL), and reduced flank and suprapubic pain. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: The management of giant bladder stones involves open vesicolithotomy, which is considered the gold standard for complete removal, as AUA and EAU guidelines recommend. A subsequent URS for the removal of bilateral ureteral stones provides a favorable outcome for the patient.
conclusionA holistic approach for giant bladder stones is required, encompassing diagnosis and surgical planning to minimize misdiagnosis and complications. A staged surgical approach, including vesicolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy, may be beneficial.
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.