ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Which surgical method should be used in pediatric patients with a solitary kidney and 1-2 cm kidney stones?
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. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating pediatric patients with solitary kidneys harboring medium-sized (1-2 cm) kidney stones.
methodsThis study was conducted retrospectively. The two groups were compared in terms of surgical and postoperative parameters. Renal function was assessed both preoperatively and at the third month following surgery.
resultsThe mean age of patients in the mini-PCNL group was 13.5 ± 3.6 years, whereas that in the RIRS group was 10.7 ± 3.9 years (p = 0.772). The duration of fluoroscopy was significantly longer in the mini-PCNL group (126 ± 46.8 s) than in the RIRS group (55.3 ± 32.6 s) (p < 0.001). Conversely, the RIRS group had a longer operative time (58.3 ± 28.1 min) than did the mini-PCNL group (40.4 ± 19.2 min) (p = 0.028). At the one-month follow-up, stone-free rates were markedly higher in the mini-PCNL group (97.5%) than in the RIRS group (80.6%) (p < 0.001). There was no significant change in renal function following both surgeries.
conclusionsMini-PCNL demonstrated superior outcomes in terms of stone clearance, reduced operative duration, and a lower need for subsequent procedures. In contrast, RIRS was associated with reduced fluoroscopy exposure and minimal blood loss, although it necessitated more frequent use of supplementary interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41160241What 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.