ArticleBMC urology2026
Is ambulatory flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy safe and feasible? evidence from a propensity score-matched cohort.
Article in BMC urology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety, efficacy, and health economic value of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURS) for upper urinary tract stones in ambulatory surgery compared to traditional inpatient management.
methodsA retrospective cohort study analyzed 174 fURS cases performed by a single surgeon between January and December 2024. Patients were divided into ambulatory and inpatient groups. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1 ratio) was applied to balance baseline differences. Demographic data, perioperative parameters, and outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR, assessment via abdominal X-ray within 24 h postoperatively, with residual fragments > 2 mm considered significant), complication rates (Clavien-Dindo classification), hospitalization duration, and costs were analyzed.
resultsA total of 174 patients with upper urinary tract stones were included. Pre-matching analysis revealed that the inpatient group had significantly older age (58.55 ± 12.52 vs. 50.14 ± 12.79 years, P < 0.001), larger cumulative stone diameter (1.67 ± 0.74 vs. 1.34 ± 0.57 cm, P = 0.001), and longer operative time (53.09 ± 26.64 vs. 41.30 ± 21.45 min, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications (2.33% vs. 1.14%, P = 0.491) or SFR (80.23% vs. 82.95%, P = 0.789). The ambulatory group demonstrated a 74.6% reduction in hospitalization duration (1.09 ± 0.29 vs. 4.29 ± 1.14 days, P < 0.001) and lower unadjusted total costs (27,075.41 ± 4,112.93 vs. 29,240.94 ± 3,856.12 RMB, P < 0.001). Post-PSM analysis confirmed comparable baseline characteristics, with the ambulatory group maintaining shorter hospitalization (1.12 ± 0.33 vs. 4.18 ± 1.09 days, P < 0.001), with no statistically significant difference in total costs between the two groups (27,378.33 ± 3768.93 vs. 28,639.67 ± 4,033.38 RMB, P = 0.106).
conclusionAmbulatory fURS represents a safe and effective treatment option for selected patients with upper urinary tract stones. This model substantially reduces hospitalization duration without compromising surgical outcomes or patient safety in carefully selected patients treated by experienced surgeons.
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.