ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (S-PCNL): a propensity score matched study of surgical outcomes and complications.
Article 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 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.
- An Updated Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for Upper Urinary Tract Calculi.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Use of Novel 6.3 Fr Ureteroscope in Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS): Comparative Experience with Conventional Ureteroscopes.Journal of clinical 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEndoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) has transformed the management of complex renal stones, offering potential advantages over conventional Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL), including reduced need for secondary punctures and improved stone-free rates (SFR). This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes and complications between ECIRS and Supine PCNL (S-PCNL).
methodsData was prospectively collected from all consecutive patients treated with ECIRS or S-PCNL at a UK tertiary centre from 2008 to 2024. Surgical outcomes, complications, transfusion rates, and hospital stay were recorded. A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) method was used to minimize differences in baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was secondary puncture rate; secondary outcomes included SFR, complication rates, operative time, transfusion rate, and hospital stay.
resultsA total of 704 patients were included, with 186 (26%) undergoing ECIRS. After PSM, 176 matched pairs were analysed. ECIRS showed a significantly lower secondary puncture rate (2% vs. 7%, p = 0.01) and higher SFR (90% vs. 81%, p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in overall (16% vs. 14%, p = 0.7) or major complications (6% vs. 4.5%, p = 0.8), or in transfusion rates (0.6% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.7). ECIRS had a longer median operative time [72 vs. 65 min, p = 0.03], while S-PCNL was associated with a longer hospital stay [3 vs. 2 days, p = 0.02].
conclusionsECIRS is a safe and effective technique for managing complex renal stones. The technique is associated with higher stone free rate and reduced need for secondary puncture compared to S-PCNL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40932495What 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.