Trial reportUrolithiasis2025
Intelligent pressure-controlled retrograde intrarenal surgery versus microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat 2-3 cm renal calculi.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- The evolution of retrograde intrarenal surgery: a comprehensive meta-analysis of suction-assisted versus conventional techniques against mini-PCNL for 2-3 cm renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery with a flexible and navigable suction sheath (FANS-RIRS) versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) for 2-3 cm renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy of the Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position vs. the lithotomy position in FANS-UAS-assisted IPC-RIRS for renal calculi.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
We performed a comparative analysis of intelligent pressure-controlled ureteroscopic lithotripsy (IRIRS) and intelligent pressure-controlled microchannel percutaneous nephrolithotomy (IMPCNL) to treat 2-3 cm renal calculi. Patients (n = 140) with 2-3 cm renal calculi were randomly divided into the IRIRS and IMPCNL groups (n = 70/group). Surgical time, length of hospital stays, stone clearance rate, decrease in hemoglobin level, postoperative pain score, and incidence of complications were compared between groups. The IRIRS group had significantly longer operative durations than the IMPCNL group (average: 58.3 ± 7.4 vs. 52.5 ± 6.8 min). Stone clearance rates at 4 weeks postoperatively were 90.0% and 92.8% in the IRIRS and IMPCNL groups, respectively (P > 0.05). The IRIRS group had shorter hospital stays than the IMPCNL group (1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 3.2 ± 0.4 days). Intraoperative hemoglobin levels decreased more in the IMPCNL (1.03 ± 0.12 g/dL) than in the IRIRS (0.25 ± 0.06 g/dL, P < 0.001) group. Two and one cases in the IRIRS and IMPCNL group, respectively, experienced postoperative fever. The overall complication incidence did not significantly differ (12.9% IRIRS and 15.7% IMPCNL; P > 0.05). IRIRS and IMPCNL are safe, effective interventions for 2-3 cm renal calculi. Given its minimally invasive nature and positive operative safety outcomes, IRIRS has promising future applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.