SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Novel 6.3 Fr Ureteroscope in Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS): Comparative Experience with Conventional Ureteroscopes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Risk factor analysis for septic shock in female patients after mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.Translational andrology and urology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveStandard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (S-PCNL) remains the gold standard for > 2 cm renal stones but carries hemorrhage/sepsis risks. Ultra-mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UM-PCNL) uses smaller tracts (11-14 Fr vs. 24-30 Fr) to reduce complications, yet efficacy/safety for 1.0-2.5 cm stones remains controversial due to limited evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares UM-PCNL versus S-PCNL regarding stone-free rate (SFR) and overall complication rate to evaluate UM-PCNL's safety and efficacy.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to December 2024 for studies comparing S-PCNL and UM-PCNL outcomes. Meta-analyses used Review Manager 5.4 with random or fixed-effects models to calculate pooled odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD).
resultsSeven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (628 patients; S-PCNL = 317, UM-PCNL = 311) were included. No significant difference in SFR between UM-PCNL and S-PCNL was observed (P = 0.65). However, compared to S-PCNL, UM-PCNL demonstrated shorter hospitalization duration (P < 0.00001), reduced postoperative hemoglobin (HB) drop (P = 0.0004) and lower risk of overall complication rate (P = 0.0003), calyceal injury (P = 0.008), and postoperative fever (P = 0.04). Operative time, severe hemorrhage, urine extravasation, urinary tract infection, and gross hematuria showed no significant differences (all P > 0.05).
conclusionFor 1.0-2.5 cm stones, UM-PCNL achieves comparable SFR to S-PCNL but offers advantages, including shorter hospitalization, less HB decline, and reduced risks of severe bleeding, calyceal injury, postoperative fever, and overall complications. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The objectives and methodology of this systematic review and meta-analysis were prospectively registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register (Registration ID: CRD42025632409), in accordance with PRISMA-P guidelines to ensure transparency and mitigate reporting bias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40879969What 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.