ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Comparison of two different tract dilatation techniques in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Amplatz versus balloon.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the Amplatz dilation (AD) and balloon dilation (BD) techniques for tract dilation during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). We retrospectively reviewed medical records of clinical data from 345 patients who underwent PCNL at the Urology Clinic of Karaman Training and Research Hospital from February 2021 to January 2025. AD was used in 119 patients and BD was used in 171 patients. Hemoglobin decrease, blood transfusion rate, glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decrease, total operation time, hospital stay, fluoroscopy time, nephrostomy removal time, success rate and complications were compared between the two groups. Similar baseline characteristics were observed in the two groups. Compared to the BD group, the operation time (40 m vs. 54 m, p = 0.002), fluoroscopy time (150 s vs. 265 s, p < 0.001) and hospital stay (4 day vs. 5 day, p = 0.009) were significantly higher in the AD group. Hemoglobin decrease (1.8 g/dl vs. 1.0 g/dl, p: 0.012) and blood transfusion rate (15.1% vs. 8.7%, p:0.036) were observed higher in the AD group than in the BD group. Additionally success rate rate was higher for BD group than Amplatz group (90.35% vs. 84.62%, p:0.015). The complication rates based on Clavien classification such as urine leakage, renal function alteration and renal pelvic perforation were similar in two groups with no significant difference. Only bleeding and blood transfusion requirement were observed to be statistically significantly higher in the AD group (14.2% vs. 8.7%, p:0.042). BD appears to be a faster, more effective, safer and superior dilatation technique than AD, whereas BD was significantly more expensive than AD. Further confirmatory research is necessary to confirm and validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40542823What 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.