ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
A prospective comparative study between retrograde intrarenal surgery vs supine mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy for single upper ureteric stones >10 mm.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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.
- The comparison of synchronous bilateral and unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Meta-analysis.Central European journal of urology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To compare retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and supine mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (smPCNL) in the management of upper ureteric stones larger than 10 mm. Material and methods: Patients with upper ureteric stones (above L4 vertebra transverse process) larger than 10 mm at Ford Hospital and Research Centre between January 2023 and June 2024 were included in the study and were operated with either RIRS (group A) or smPCNL (group B) based on the informed consent and patients' decision. Patient demographics, stone parameters, intraoperative variables, postoperative outcomes, stone-free rates (SFR) and complications were recorded, and the two groups were compared. Results: Over 18 months, 140 patients (70 in each group) were available for comparison. Both the groups were comparable in terms of patient's demographics and the stone parameters. For RIRS and smPCNL, the mean stone size was 13.87 ±3.69 and 14.21 ±3.47 mm (p = 0.329), mean operative duration was 42.52 ±28.37 and 30.69 ±18.55 minutes (p = 0.0001), mean drop in haemoglobin at 24 hours was 0.44 ±0.96 and 0.69 ±0.92 g/dl (p = 0.364) and postoperative hospital stay was 0.92 ±0.68 and 1.13 ±0.76 days, respectively.The SFR (at 3 months post-surgery) were 94.2% for RIRS and 98.57% for smPCNL (p = 0.084) and complications rate (Clavien-Dindo ≥II) was 2.88% for both groups. Primary access was not possible in 30% of patients in RIRS leading to staged intervention. Conclusions: RIRS and smPCNL are safe and effective surgical alternatives for managing upper ureteric stones larger than 10 mm. smPCNL offers a single stage solution and equivalent results with RIRS for the large upper ureteric stones.
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.