Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40029456›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025

Antibiotic prophylaxis in stone surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Filippo Gavi, Mauro Ragonese, Daniele Fettucciari, Maria Chiara Sighinolfi, Filippo Turri, Enrico Panio, Stefano Moretto, Giovanni Balocchi, Domenico Maria Sanesi, Filippo Marino and 6 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

16 authors.

Filippo Gavi *Department of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9994-4316
Mauro Ragonese *Department of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1919-8729
Daniele FettucciariDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy. daniele.fettucciari01@icatt.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-1799-3865
Maria Chiara SighinolfiDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7211-0485
Filippo TurriDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Enrico PanioDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6332-9004
Stefano MorettoDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3418-5202
Giovanni BalocchiDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Domenico Maria SanesiDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Filippo MarinoDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Gavazzeni, Bergamo, Italy.
Alessandra FrancocciDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Pierluigi RussoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7789-9486
Nazario FoschiDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0464-0788
Francesco PintoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.
Emilio SaccoDepartment of Urology, Ospedale Fatebenefratelli Isola Tiberina, Gemelli Isola, Roma, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4640-8354
Bernardo RoccoDepartment of Urology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9135-0035

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEndoscopic lithotripsy has become widely adopted worldwide and is considered the gold standard for managing upper urinary tract lithiasis. One of its possible complications is post-operative infection. We aimed to review available literature about the role of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and its indications.

methodsWe performed a systematic search of the literature including "ureteroscopy", "PNL", "retrograde intrarenal surgery", "antibiotic prophylaxis" and "sepsis" as keywords. Out of 760 relevant studies only 13 met our inclusion criteria: at least 10 adult patients (≥ 18 years old) diagnosed with kidney or ureteral stones; antibiotic prophylaxis described and reported; post-operative sepsis, UTI or SIRS assessed.

conclusionsAntibiotic prophylaxis strategies for stone surgery show different degrees of effectiveness depending on both the approach and the patient's condition. Today's evidence suggests that while routine antibiotic prophylaxis might not be necessary for all patients with sterile urine undergoing ureterorenoscopy and lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, for those patients with positive preoperative urine cultures it is beneficial reducing the risk of postoperative infective complications.

Indexed as

Antibiotic ProphylaxisKidney CalculiPostoperative ComplicationsUreteral CalculiUrinary Tract InfectionsHumansLithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousUreteroscopyAntibiotic prophylaxisEndourologyPercutaneous nephrolithotripsyStone cultureStone surgeryUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID40029456
PMCPMC11876188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.