ArticleBMC urology2025
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with intelligent pressure control: experience from a primary hospital in China.
Article in BMC urology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of conventional retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and RIRS with intelligent pressure control, as well as to identify factors influencing the stone-free rate (SFR). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a retrospective review of 101 patients treated with either conventional RIRS or RIRS with intelligent pressure control from September 2023 to September 2024. Clinical and stone-related parameters were collected for comparison between the two methods, and factors affecting SFR were examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses.
resultsThe SFR was significantly higher in the intelligent pressure control group compared to the conventional RIRS group (89.8% vs. 73.1%, p = 0.032). No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups regarding operative time or post-operative hospital stays. The incidence of post-operative fever was lower in the intelligent pressure control group than in the conventional RIRS group (2.0% vs. 9.8%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.205). Univariate analysis identified stone size, stone density, number, location, and surgical method as factors associated with SFR. Multivariate analysis further confirmed that stone size, density, and surgical method significantly impacted SFR.
conclusionRIRS with intelligent pressure control significantly improves the stone-free rate compared to conventional RIRS, without increasing complications, hospitalization duration, or operative time. Additionally, stone size and density were influential factors for SFR.
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.