ArticleBJUI compass2025
Comparing laser vs mechanical lithotripsy in suction mini-PCNL for kidney stone disease: A prospective multicentre study by the endourology section of EAU.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low- versus high-power holmium: YAG laser strategies affect operative efficiency in suction-assisted mini-PCNL in a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Article
- Comparing laser vs mechanical lithotripsy in suction mini-PCNL for kidney stone disease: A prospective multicentre study by the endourology section of EAU.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare perioperative outcomes, complications and stone-free rates (SFRs) between laser and non-laser lithotripsy in suction-assisted mini-PCNL (SM-PCNL). Subjects and Methods: This prospective multicentre study enrolled adults with normal kidneys undergoing SM-PCNL (14-22 Fr) across 30 international centres (March-November 2024). Patients were divided into laser (Group 1) and non-laser (Group 2) groups. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed based on age, sex, Guy's score and patient position. Primary outcomes were complications and 30-day SFR assessed by CT. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of complete stone clearance and complications. Results: After matching, 748 patients were analysed (Group 1: 448; Group 2: 300). Non-laser devices were associated with shorter lithotripsy (12 vs 18 min, p < 0.001) and operative times (37 vs 45 min, p < 0.001) and higher SFR (intraoperative: 91.3% vs 80.7%; 30-day: 87.7% vs 82.1%). However, transfusions (3.3% vs 0.2%), pelvic perforation and pleural injury (each 3.0%) were more common in Group 2. On multivariable analysis, single-step dilation (OR 3.05) and sheath sizes of 16.5-18 Fr (OR 1.98) or 20-22 Fr (OR 2.72) were associated with higher odds of stone-free status, while skin-to-stone distance >8 cm (OR 0.5) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (0.28) reduced this likelihood. Stone volume (OR 1.03), serial dilation with non-metal dilators (OR 2.64) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (OR 2.11) were factors associated with higher odds of complications. The lithotripsy technology had no direct bearing on complications. Conclusions: Both laser and non-laser lithotripsy are effective in SM-PCNL. Non-laser devices improve efficiency and lasers were preferentially used with 14-18 fr access tracts.
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.