ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Suction mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 2-4 cm kidney stones: study protocol for an international, multicenter, parallel-group, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial.
Article in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05088213 (Suction Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of 2-4 cm Kidney Stones), which is not on this 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.
Suction Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Management of 2-4 cm Kidney Stones: Study Protocol for an International, Multicenter, Parallel-group, Noninferiority, Randomized Controlled Trial
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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is recommended as the first-line treatment choice for the management of kidney stones larger than 2 cm. However, tract-related complications have always been a concern, especially in standard PCNL where a larger tract > 24Fr is established. The mini-PCNL technique with smaller tract (≤ 18 Fr) has been introduced to decrease tract related complications. Yet, with a smaller mini-PCNL tract, fragments must be fragmented into smaller pieces before extraction, potentially prolonging the operative time. Moreover, if the outflow of irrigation fluid is insufficient via the smaller tract, the intrarenal pressure (IRP) can build up, leading to pyelovenous backflow and infectious complications - an issue theoretically mitigated by the addition of suction techniques. However, high-level evidence comparing suction mini-PCNL outcomes to standard PCNL is still lacking.
methodsThe present multicenter, international, randomized controlled noninferiority trial compares suction mini-PCNL to standard PCNL in the management of 2-4 cm kidney stones. The primary outcomes are the immediate postoperative stone-free rate (SFR) and operative time, while secondary outcomes include the final SFR at 1 month, postoperative pain score, length of hospital stay, postoperative complications, and quality of life.
resultsA total of 960 patients from 20 urological centers will be randomized to receive either suction mini-PCNL or standard PCNL. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed. For SFR, non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the absolute risk difference exceeds - 10%. For operative time, non-inferiority will be concluded if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the mean difference exceeds - 10 min. For all other analyses, a two-sided p-value of < 0.05 will be regarded as statistically significant. Subgroup analyses will be performed to explore potential effect modification by stone location and stone density.
conclusionThe aim of this trial is to generate high-level evidence regarding the noninferiority of suction mini-PCNL compared to standard PCNL for 2-4 cm renal stones. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05088213.
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.