ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it mandatory to treat them all?
Article in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tackling complex kidney stones in children: the role of vacuum-assisted mini-PCNL - a single-center study.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- A gender-based investigation of risk factors for infectious complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: insight for personalized management.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Reevaluating the management of residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Zero residual fragment ureteroscopy: from possibility to reality - an EAU endourology perspective.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Acute Kidney Injury Following Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: predictors and Follow-up Evaluation in Real-life Setting.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate complication rates, stone growth and passage according to residual fragments (RFs) size in a cohort of patients treated with miniPCNL (mPCNL). We retrospectively analysed data from 572 patients who underwent mPCNL between 01/2018 and 11/2023. We identified 105 (19.4%) patients with RFs and at least 1-year follow up. Demographics and RFs passage, regrowth and complications were recorded by chart review and phone interviews. RFs were stratified into ≤ 5 mm; 6-9 mm and ≥ 10 mm groups. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were applied to test the association between RFs size and stone related events. Median number and diameter of RFs were 2 (1-3) and 8 (5-10) mm, respectively. RFs of ≤ 5 mm (Group 1), 6-9 mm (Group 2) and ≥ 10 mm (Group 3) were detected in 27 (25.7%), 47 (44.7%) and 31 (29.6%) cases, respectively, after mPCNL. Overall, 23 (21.9%), 20 (19%) and 9 (8.5%) patients had a stone related event [emergency room (ER) admission], stone growth and passage during follow up, respectively. Renal colic requiring ER admission were more frequent in Group 2 compared to the ≥ 10 and ≤ 5 mm one (36.1% vs. 9.6% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.01). Conversely, Group 1 showed higher rates of stone growth compared to the other groups (37.0% vs. 17.0% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.02). No difference in the rate of UTIs and stone passage was reported according to RFs size. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that RFs of 6-9 mm had higher risk of stone related events (OR 5.5, p = 0.04) compared to the other groups, even after adjusting for patients' BMI. Conversely, patients with RFs ≤ 5 mm had higher risk of stone growth (OR 9.6, p = 0.04), compared to the other RFs groups, after adjusting for patients' BMI. RFs after mPCNL have different impact on patient's clinical course, according to their size. Large RFs are less likely to grow or cause stone-related events. Conversely, RFs of medium size (6-9 mm) are associated with higher risk of ER admission and should be promptly treated. Small RFs can increase in size, but conservative management or delayed surgery may be considered, as they typically remain asymptomatic during follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40465007What 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.