ArticleCurrent urology2024
A randomized comparative study of flexible ureterorenoscopy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal stones 2 cm or less.
Article in Current urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a grade-assessed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Development of a machine learning model for predicting urosepsis after ureteroscopic lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Reporting the Impact of Pelvicalyceal System (PCS) Anatomy on Clinical Outcomes in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) Studies: Can We Do Better? - Methodological Review from the Section of EAU Endourology.Urology research & practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) have been increasingly used for the treatment of renal stones. However, current guidelines do not recommend one modality over the other. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of treatment with fURS versus mPCNL for renal stones sized 2 cm or less. Materials and methods: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted between January 2019 and July 2021 at 3 tertiary care urology centers. Inclusion criteria were adult patients with renal stone(s) ≤ 2 cm with inappropriateness or failure of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Subjects were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups, either mPCNL or fURS. Two primary outcomes were assessed: (1) initial success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments (>2 mm) on kidney ureter bladder X-ray and ultrasound on the first postoperative day; and (2) complications, which were reported according to the Modified Clavien-Dindo classification system. Secondary outcomes included final success rate, defined as the absence of clinically significant residual fragments on noncontrast computed tomography on the 90th postoperative day; operative time; auxiliary procedures and blood transfusion rates; hemoglobin drop; and length of hospital stay. Results: One hundred and eighteen procedures were analyzed (59 in each group). The initial success rate of the mPCNL group (93%) was significantly higher than that of the fURS group (70%). Complications occurred more frequently with mPCNL than fURS (44.1% vs. 18.6%, respectively). Final success rate, operative time, and length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy is more effective than fURS as a single-step treatment for renal stones <2 cm because of its higher initial success rate and lower auxiliary procedure rate. However, mPCNL results in significantly higher complication rates than fURS.
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.