ArticleArab journal of urology2026
Retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) as a primary treatment for large renal stones: A prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of outcomes in kidney stone management: stone-free rate vs. cost vs. quality of life: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the high efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), it has more morbidity and a difficult learning curve. Retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) was introduced as a minimally invasive procedure for treatment of renal stones. Objective: To compare RIRS versus PNL in the management of renal stones sized 2-3 cm. Patient and methods: In this prospective randomized controlled trial, 122 patients with renal stones 2-3 cm were included and divided into two equal groups. Group A underwent RIRS. Group B underwent PNL. Patients with bleeding disorders, pregnancy, active UTI were excluded. Laboratory investigations, Ultrasound, CTUT were done preoperatively. Perioperative outcome (operative time, complications, hospital stay and pain score) was recorded. SFR (stone free rate) was assessed by CTUT after one month. Results: The mean stone size for group A and B were 2.11 ± 0.21 and 2.12 ± 0.23, respectively. The Stone free rate was 70.5% in RIRS and 73.8% in PNL ( Conclusion: RIRS can be used as an alternative to PNL for the management of renal stones sized 2-3 cm, with comparable stone free rates, less hospital stays, less pain score, less hemoglobin drops. but longer lithotripsy time.
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.