ArticleCureus2026
Giant Distal Ureteric Calculus in a Tertiary Care Center: Our Experience.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to describe the clinical presentation, diagnostic evaluation, and management of giant distal ureteric calculi at a tertiary care center. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective case series included seven adult patients with distal ureteric calculi measuring >5 cm who were treated at a tertiary care facility between December 2023 and August 2024. Patients presenting with sepsis or acute renal impairment were excluded. All patients underwent comprehensive clinical evaluation and radiological assessment using ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography, followed by open ureterolithotomy. Postoperative outcomes, including stone clearance and procedure-related complications, were documented.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 45.1 ± 19.3 years (range: 12-69 years). Females comprised five patients (71.4%) of the study population. The mean stone size was 5.81 ± 0.43 cm. Fever was observed in six (85.7%) patients, and three (42.9%) had positive urine cultures. Hydroureteronephrosis was present in all patients (7/7, 100%). Complete stone clearance was achieved in all cases following open ureterolithotomy, with no residual fragments or significant postoperative complications.
conclusionOpen ureterolithotomy was a safe and effective treatment option for giant distal ureteric calculi, providing complete stone removal with minimal perioperative morbidity, particularly when minimally invasive approaches are not feasible or have failed.
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.