Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
Modified amplatz sheath with suction versus standard sheath in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treating large renal stones > 2 cm: a prospective randomized trial.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Comment on "Modified amplatz sheath with suction versus standard sheath in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treating large renal stones > 2 cm: a prospective randomized trial".World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of using a modified amplatz as an access sheath in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) compared to the standard Amplatz sheath for the treatment of renal stones larger than 2 cm.
methodsThis prospective randomized study was conducted on 240 patients with renal stones larger than 2 cm who underwent PCNL. Patients were randomized into two equal groups: Group I (standard Amplatz sheath) and Group II (modified Amplatz sheath). Outcomes measured included operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), complications, and hospital stay.
resultsThe modified Amplatz sheath group had a significantly shorter mean operative time compared to the standard sheath group (56 ± 12 vs. 83 ± 17 min, respectively; P < 0.001). The SFR was higher in the modified sheath group (90.8% vs. 80%; P = 0.017). Postoperative complications, such as fever (4.2% vs. 10.8%) and pain (13.3% vs. 20.8%), were significantly lower in the modified sheath group (P = 0.036). The modified sheath group also had a shorter hospital stay, with 93.3% discharged within two days compared to 85% in the standard group (P = 0.038). Multivariate analysis indicated that the use of the modified sheath reduced the risk of residual stones by 91% (OR = 0.086, 95% CI = 0.027-0.280, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe use of a modified Amplatz sheath in PCNL significantly reduces operative time, increases the SFR, and decreases postoperative complications compared to the standard Amplatz sheath.
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.