Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40465007›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2025

Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it mandatory to treat them all?

Andrea Li Puma, Federica Passarelli, Elisa De Lorenzis, Emanuele Montanari, Giancarlo Albo, Luca Boeri

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrea Li PumaDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Federica PassarelliDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Elisa De LorenzisDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Emanuele MontanariDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Giancarlo AlboDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Luca BoeriDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Fondazione Ca' Granda, Policlinico di Milano, Milan, Italy. dr.lucaboeri@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Kidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousPostoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesComplicationsRenal colicResidual fragmentsStone

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.