SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
A comparative meta-analysis on bilateral same-session and unilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery for kidney stones.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Network meta-analysis of clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy combined with tip-flexible suction ureteral access sheath for kidney stones.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the safety and efficacy of bilateral same-session retrograde intrarenal surgery (B-RIRS) and unilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery (U-RIRS) for treating renal stones, focusing on stone-free rates (SFR), complications, retreatment rates, operative time, and hospital stay. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Seven comparative studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes included SFR and complications (minor: Clavien-Dindo I-II; major: III-V); secondary outcomes comprised retreatment rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Random-effects models were used to generate pooled odds ratios (OR) for categorical outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables. Subgroup analyses compared adult-only populations with elderly-inclusive cohorts.
resultsA total of 1,218 patients from seven studies were analyzed. Overall, B-RIRS showed no statistically significant difference in SFR (OR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.43-1.23) compared to U-RIRS, yet subgroup analyses indicated that elderly populations tended to have lower SFR with bilateral procedures. B-RIRS was associated with higher minor (OR 2.55; 95% CI, 1.33-4.90) and major complications (OR 3.16; 95% CI, 1.38-7.24), increased retreatment needs (OR 2.46; 95% CI, 1.48-4.08), and longer operative times (MD 24.99 min; 95% CI, 17.48-32.50). Hospital stay was similar between groups.
conclusionsAlthough B-RIRS facilitates management by reducing multiple anesthesia exposures and maintaining similar SFRs, it appears to be linked with increased complication and retreatment rates, especially in elderly or comorbidity-heavy populations. Carefully selected patients may see more comparable complications. Future randomized trials are needed to confirm these subgroup findings, standardize stone-free definitions, and refine selection criteria for bilateral same-session RIRS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40569296What 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.