ArticleFuture science OA2026
RIRS vs PCNL in treating lower-pole renal stones: a comparative clinical outcome study.
Article in Future science OA, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe reduced-pole renal stones with a length of 1-2 cal have a special anatomical problem, which could also influence the degree of efficacy of treatment and incidence rates. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the two popular techniques of their treatment but the best method is yet questionable. The purpose of the research was to compare the perioperative outcome, complication profile, and stone-free rates between RIRS and PCNL as the forms of treatment of the lower-pole renal stones.
methodsThis study was designed as a retrospective multicenter comparative clinical outcome study. There was a total 177 adult patient, 1-2 cm solitary lower pole renal stones, 85 patients undergoing RIRS and 92 patients undergoing PCNL. The preoperative characteristics of the stones and anatomical parameters were estimated by non-contrast computed tomography. The intraoperative variables and the postoperative recovery outcomes and complications are noted. At 3 months, non-contrast CT was checked to identify if the patient was stone-free or not. The determination of complications was done using the Clavien-Dindo system. The parametric and nonparametric tests were conducted to perform a statistical comparison of the results obtained and the significance was established at p < 0.05.
resultsBoth groups were similar for baseline demographic, clinical, stone-related and anatomical characteristics. PCNL showed a much high stone free rate at 3 months than in RIRS (93.5 vs 78.8; p = 0.01). Nonetheless, the RIRS was associated with a much shorter period of operation, decreased fluoroscopy level, lesser pain rating postop, decrease in hemoglobin levels, and decreased hospitalization (all p < 0.001). The overall rates of complications were much more increased in PCNL in comparison with the control (39.1 vs 16.5; p = 0.002), such aspects as febrile episodes, urinary tract infection, blood transfusion, major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III), and 30-day readmissions. The increased need for auxiliary procedures and re-interventions was related to RIRS.
conclusionPCNL is better used in the treatment of inferior pole renal stones not exceeding 1-2 cm in size and RIRS is better in terms of perioperative profile (lowest morbidity, faster recovery). The selection of treatment must be made on a case-by-case basis with a trade-off between the greatest clearance of the stone and the risk inherent in the treatment and characteristics of the patient.
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.