Trial reportBJU international2026
Comparison of staff workload between percutaneous nephrolithotomy with and without intraoperative cone-beam CT: an 18-month postoperative analysis.
Trial report in BJU international, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether hybrid cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) reduces overall staff demands compared to standard PCNL. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe performed a retrospective study of a randomised controlled trial conducted in a tertiary Dutch urolithiasis centre. A total of 160 patients were randomised 1:1 to CBCT-PCNL or standard PCNL. Staff time was estimated from preoperative assessment through 18 months of follow-up, including both elective and unplanned care delivered by nurses, urologists, anaesthesiologists, intensivists, radiologists, and technical staff. Time estimates were derived from literature, standard times, and bottom-up and top-down calculations.
resultsHybrid CBCT-PCNL required 36.3 staff hours per patient vs 43.1 h for standard PCNL (19% reduction), largely driven by a 47% decrease in unplanned care due to fewer complications and stone-related events. Most care was attributable to nurses (61% in the CBCT-PCNL group; 63% in the standard PCNL group), with time concentrated in hospital days (43%; 42%) and surgery (46%; 38%).
conclusionHybrid CBCT-PCNL can improve clinical efficiency and reduce labour demand, freeing staff for other care needs. These findings highlight how innovative urological technologies can enhance care efficiency, which is especially important amid growing workforce pressures.
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.