Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41191117›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2025

Post ureteroscopy stone status, comparing stone free rate and zero fragment rate - does the difference matter ?

Hubert Werth, Federico Zorzi, Alejandra Bravo-Balado, Luigi Candela, Letizia Maria Ippolita Jannello, Olivier Traxer, Steeve Doizi, Frédéric Panthier

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Hubert WerthService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France. hubert.werth@aphp.fr.
Federico ZorziService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Alejandra Bravo-BaladoService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Luigi CandelaService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Letizia Maria Ippolita JannelloService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Olivier TraxerService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Steeve DoiziService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.
Frédéric PanthierService d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, 4 rue de la Chine, Paris, 75020, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to compare postoperative complication rates between zero fragment rate (ZFR) and stone free rate (SFR) patients after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and to assess the relevance of stone volume versus maximum stone diameter (MSD) in postoperative evaluation. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a retrospective, single-center study including 80 patients who underwent RIRS between December 2023 and December 2024 and had a postoperative CT scan within 3 months. Patients were classified as ZFR (< 1 mm fragments) or SFR (1–4 mm). The primary endpoint was the occurrence of ≥ 1 stone related event (SRE) within 6 months. Secondary endpoints included correlation between postoperative volume and MSD.

resultsSRE occurred in 18.4% of ZFR patients versus 40.5% in SFR patients (p = 0.047). No significant difference was observed in baseline stone characteristics, but BMI was higher in ZFR patients (p = 0.025). Postoperative volume correlated poorly with diameter (r = 0.30), supporting volume-based assessments.

conclusionOur findings suggest that ZFR status is associated with twice fewer SRE at 6 months and should be the preferred surgical goal when feasible. ZFR could be considered as the new gold standard for publications after RIRS. Volume-based assessment may offer greater accuracy than diameter alone and deserves further evaluation.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiPostoperative ComplicationsUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleHumansKidneyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedTreatment OutcomeComplicationsStone-freeUreteroscopyUrinary stonesVolume

Identifiers

PMID41191117

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.