SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
The impact of size: a systematic review and meta-analysis of tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 2171 adult patients.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) with nephrostomy drainage remains the standard treatment for large and complex renal calculi; however, the comparative effectiveness of tubeless PCNL versus standard PCNL, particularly across different nephrostomy tube sizes, remains uncertain.This meta-analysis focuses on comparing T-PCNL versus S-PCNL across nephrostomy bore sizes to provide a comprehensive evaluation of outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive database search until July 2024, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared T-PCNL and S-PCNL. We included studies that reported outcomes related to operative time, stone-free rate (SFR), post-operative complications, and length of hospital stay. Results were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD), mean differences (MD), and risk ratios (RR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
resultsTwenty-eight RCTs comprising 2,171 patients were included. T-PCNL significantly reduced hospital stay (SMD = -1.12; p < 0.00001), analgesic use (SMD = -1.01; p < 0.00001), and postoperative pain (SMD = -1.05; p = 0.01), particularly when compared to medium and large bore tubes. No significant differences were found in SFR (RR = 1.03; p = 0.15), transfusion, urosepsis, or Clavien-Dindo grade II-IV events. Operative time and residual stone burden were also lower with T-PCNL.
conclusionT-PCNL is a safe and effective alternative to S-PCNL, offering faster recovery and fewer postoperative symptoms. Its benefits are most pronounced when compared to larger bore nephrostomy tubes, supporting its broader adoption in appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41917379What 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.