ReviewUrology annals
Safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for lower-pole renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Urology annals. 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.
- RIRS vs PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones: a comparative clinical outcome study.Future science OA · 2026Article
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
Background: Numerous therapeutic strategies have been developed as a result of the rise in the prevalence of renal stones. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are currently available treatments for lower-pole renal stones (LPRSs). This systematic review and meta-main analysis's primary objective were to assess the requisite studies that examined the effectiveness of ESWL, RIRS, and PCNL for treating LPRS. Materials and Methods: This study adhered to PRISMA guidelines' guiding principles. In two stages, the desired studies were extracted. In the initial screening, we identified 850 related articles from the years 2004 to 2022 using the keywords. Unfortunately, 350 studies were disqualified because they failed to meet our inclusion requirements; the remaining studies underwent additional screening. In the second stage, two authors went through the entire text of the articles and found duplicates and missing data. Ten articles were eventually selected for the research's conclusion. Results: PCNL and RIRS had higher stone-free rates than ESWL and needed fewer treatment sessions out of the total of 10 clinical trials that were considered to be eligible. While ESWL required more ESWL sessions, operative time and complications seemed to benefit ESWL over PCNL. RIRS looked to be the most efficient technique for treating stones in the lower pole that were up to 1 cm in diameter. Conclusion: To achieve stone-free status over a brief period of time and with the fewest number of sessions, the management of LPRS should probably be PCNL or RIRS, according to the pooled meta-analysis of the eligible trials in our systematic review. RIRS was more effective than ESWL for stones <10 mm in size. The choice between the two methods (PCNL or RIRS) should be made specifically for each patient depending on their anatomical characteristics, comorbidities, and preferences as deemed appropriate by the attending clinician.
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.