ReviewUrology research & practice2025
Comparison on Surgical Outcomes of Mini-Versus Standard-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in Staghorn Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Urology research & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrograde Intrarenal Renal Surgery versus Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy in Treatment of Renal Pelvic Stones Less than 2 cm, Randomized Clinical Study.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
- Article
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
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has become the standard for managing staghorn calculi. Smaller access sheath Mini-PCNL (M-PCNL) has been known for its advantages in surgical outcomes compared with Standard-PCNL (S-PCNL) in various settings. We conducted this systematic review to compare surgical outcomes and postoperative complications of M-PCNL vs. S-PCNL in staghorn calculi treatment. A systematic search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA Statement). Five randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 5 cohort studies were included. Risk of bias assessment was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) 2 and Cochrane RoB in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Ten studies involving 1733 staghorn calculi patients met the inclusion criteria. The stone-free rate (SFR) was comparable (odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI: 0.90-1.43, P = .28) compared to S-PCNL. Pooled analysis showed that M-PCNL resulted in a significantly lower shorter operative time (mean differences (MD) 14.06, 95% CI: 6.09-22.03, P < .001), lower blood transfusion (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.29-0.72, P < .001), and lower hemoglobin drop (MD !0.37, 95% CI: !0.72 to !0.03, P = .03) compared to S-PCNL. This meta-analysis suggests that while M-PCNL has comparable SFR to S-PCNL, it offers benefits in terms of shorter operative time, reduced blood transfusion needs, and less hemoglobin drop.
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.