Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025
Mini-PCNL (percutaneous nephrolithotomy) vs. FURSL (flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy): a head-to-head comparison in treating calyceal diverticulum stones: a prospective randomized study.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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
- Retraction · 2026-01-30Concerns/Issues about Authorship/Affiliation · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Duplication of/in Article · Euphemisms for Duplication ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy in the management of calyceal diverticulum stones.
methodsThis prospective study was performed on 91 patients across four medical centers in Saudi Arabia from January 2020 to June 2024 with confirmed calyceal diverticulum stones. Seven patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. A total of 78 patients with CD stones were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (n = 39) for fURSL and Group B (n = 39) for min-PCNL. Patient demographics, stone complexity and size, operative parameters, and postoperative results were analyzed. Primary and secondary results included stone-free rates (SFRs), operative time, hospital stay, complication rates, and recovery time. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS software.
resultsBoth groups exhibited comparable baseline characteristics and surgical feasibility. The mini-PCNL group demonstrated a higher SFR (84.62% vs. 71.79%), though the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.170). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the fURSL group (17.31 ± 3.06 h vs. 30.03 ± 7.18 h; p < 0.001). Patients undergoing fURSL returned to normal activity sooner (5.1 ± 1.37 days vs. 8.03 ± 1.05 days; p < 0.05). Complication rates were low and similar across groups.
conclusionsBoth mini-PCNL and fURSL are effective strategies for treating calyceal diverticulum stones. Notably, mini-PCNL offers superior stone-free rates, while fURSL offers shorter operative times, hospital stays, and fast recovery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40522357What 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.