SynthesisFrontiers in surgery2025
Comparison of regional and general anesthesia for retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in surgery, 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.
- A novel regional anesthesia technique for retrograde intrarenal surgery in high-risk patients: a prospective observational study.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for urolithiasis under different anesthesia methods based on current evidence. Materials and methods: In March 2022, systematic research was conducted using the databases PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to compare outcomes of RIRS with regional anesthesia (RA) or general anesthesia (GA) through randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data analysis was performed using the comprehensive meta-analysis software version 3. Results: Eight RCTs and one retrospective study, involving a total of 2,111 individuals, were included in the current review. Pooled data revealed no significant statistical differences in RIRS under RA compared to RIRS under GA in terms of stone-free rate (SFR) [odds ratio (OR) = 1.02, Conclusion: The present study revealed that RIRS under RA is not inferior in effectiveness and safety compared to that under GA, in terms of SFR, operating time, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain scores, and complication rates. Moreover, RA may offer better long-term renal function preservation and be more cost effective than GA. To improve maneuverability and accessibility for operators, we suggested that RA with sedation could be a suitable alternative with careful patient selection.
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.