ArticleBMC urology2025
Upper pole calyx fornix subapical puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of upper pole calyx fornix subapical puncture in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) compared to traditional middle calyx puncture. The subapical puncture technique offers the advantages of upper pole access while minimizing the risk of pleural injury.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of 194 patients who underwent PCNL at our hospital from May 2022 to November 2023. Patients were divided into two groups based on puncture technique: the Upper-PCNL group (n = 122) with upper pole calyx fornix subapical puncture and the Mid-PCNL group (n = 72) with middle calyx fornix apex puncture. Data collected included tract establishment time, operative time, stone-free rates, complications, and auxiliary procedures.
resultsThe Upper-PCNL group demonstrated significantly higher primary stone-free rates (83.6% vs. 69.4%, P = 0.021) and shorter operative times (59.99 ± 5.85 min vs. 68.49 ± 6.74 min, P < 0.001) compared to the Mid-PCNL group. Tract establishment time was also significantly shorter in the Upper-PCNL group (3.06 ± 0.35 min vs. 3.56 ± 0.66 min, P < 0.001). The hemoglobin drop was not significantly different between the groups. Complication rates were minimal and similar between groups. None of the patients in the Upper-PCNL group experienced pleural, liver, or spleen injuries.
conclusionsUpper pole calyx fornix subapical puncture achieved higher stone-free rates and shorter operative times compared to middle calyx puncture, with comparable safety profiles. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.
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.