ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Advantages of upper calyx puncture in mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: a retrospective comparative analysis.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: From percutaneous nephrolithotomy to the future of stone management.Investigative and clinical urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the clinical advantages and risks of upper calyx puncture (UCP) for renal stones in patients undergoing mini-endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (mini-ECIRS).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 331 patients who underwent single-tract mini-ECIRS at our institution between 2015 and 2020. Clinical outcomes, including stone-free rate (SFR), complications (Clavien-Dindo classification), operative time, fluoroscopy time, length of hospitalization, and postoperative drainage strategy, were compared between the UCP (n = 169) and non-UCP (n = 162) groups.
resultsThe UCP group had significantly larger stone diameters (25 mm vs. 23 mm, p = 0.027), burdens (31 mm vs. 28 mm, p = 0.004), stone surface areas (SSA: 371 mm^2 vs. 294 mm^2, p = 0.003), and volumes (5.73 vs. 4.26 cm^3, p = 0.001) than those in the non-UCP group. Computed tomography-based SFR did not differ significantly between the groups (UCP, 86.4%; non-UCP, 82.7%; p = 0.366). Analyses of Clavien-Dindo classification showed no significant differences. However, operative time (95.0 vs. 106.5 min, p = 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (1.1 vs. 1.9 min, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter in the UCP group. The length of hospital stay did not significantly differ (4.0 vs. 4.0 days, p = 0.095). Postoperative drainage differed between groups: nephrostomy alone was more frequent in the UCP group (47.3% vs. 29.0%), whereas stent-only drainage was more frequent in the non-UCP group (15.4% vs. 31.5%, p = 0.0023). Additionally, ureteral stent placement at discharge was significantly less common in the UCP group (37.3% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.001), potentially reducing stent-related discomfort during outpatient follow-up.
conclusionUCP in mini-ECIRS is associated with improved intraoperative visibility and shorter operative and fluoroscopy times, and reduced need for postoperative ureteral stenting, even in cases with larger stone burdens, without an increase in postoperative complications. These findings suggest that UCP may offer procedural advantages and contribute to improved postoperative comfort in appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41342906What 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.