Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40856607›Full record

ReviewInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Fourteen-Year Analysis of Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy Outcomes: Evolution of Technique and Future Perspectives.

Fabio C Vicentini, Carlos A Batagello, Giovanni S Marchini, Fabio C M Torricelli, Artur Brito, Alexandre Danilovic, Guilherme Gentile, Henrique Lepine, Priscila Kuriki Mota, Daniel Beltrame Ferreira and 7 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter StudyReview
In one paragraph

Review in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

17 authors.

Fabio C VicentiniDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Carlos A BatagelloDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Giovanni S MarchiniDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Fabio C M TorricelliDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Artur BritoDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Alexandre DanilovicDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Guilherme GentileDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Henrique LepineFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Priscila Kuriki MotaDivisão de Urologia, Hospital Brigadeiro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Daniel Beltrame FerreiraDivisão de Urologia, Hospital Brigadeiro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Rodrigo PerrellaDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
David CohenDivisão de Urologia, Hospital Brigadeiro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Claudio B MurtaDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Valter CassaoDivisão de Urologia, Hospital Brigadeiro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Joaquim A ClaroDivisão de Urologia, Hospital Brigadeiro, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
William NahasDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Eduardo MazzucchiDivisão de Urologia, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo - FMUSP, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe treatment of kidney stones has undergone continuous evolution. Despite the evolution of retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) remains the gold standard treatment for large and complex stones. We aimed to evaluate and analyze the temporal evolution of the results of the PNLs conducted at two teaching hospitals.

resultsData from 2660 patients were studied between 2009 and 2022. The rate of complex stones (Guy's 3 and 4) was 55.3%. Supine position was used in 82.1% of the cases. In 74.7% of cases, only 1 puncture was performed. The median surgery time was 120 min (15-240 min). The overall complication rate was 12.2%, the transfusion rate was 4.5%, and the success rate was 59.8%. Regarding temporal evolution, the use of the supine position increased from 73% in 2009 to 100% in 2022 (p < 0.001). The use of nephrostomy dropped from 81.8% to 26.5% (p<0.001), the median duration of surgery dropped from 145 to 130 min, the median time of use of fluoroscopy went from 12 to 8 min, the rate of blood transfusions dropped from 11.5% to 2.8% (p= 0.009), and the complication rate dropped from 18.2% to 12% (p= 0.002), while the average length of stay dropped from 81.8 hours to 50 hours.

conclusionsPNL is an effective surgical option for treating complex kidney stones. The implementation of several technical aspects, along with the standardization of the procedure, led to a significant improvement in most outcomes, reducing complication rates but leaving room for technique improvements in terms of success rates.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousBlood TransfusionHumansLength of StayLongitudinal StudiesNephrostomy, PercutaneousOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeGeneral SurgeryKidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, Percutaneous

Identifiers

PMID40856607
PMCPMC12974981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.