ArticleUrology research & practice2026
Retrograde Intrarenal Renal Surgery versus Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy in Treatment of Renal Pelvic Stones Less than 2 cm, Randomized Clinical Study.
Article in Urology research & practice, 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
objectiveRetrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the first-line treatment for kidney stones between 1 and 2 cm and can serve as an alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy for larger stones in high-risk patients, including those with bleeding disorders, obesity, renal congenital abnormalities, or solitary kidneys. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of supine mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus RIRS for the treatment of renal pelvic stones less than 2 cm.
methodsThis prospective, randomized, double-blinded study included 50 patients aged >18 years, of both sexes, with renal stones <2 cm. Patients were randomized into 2 equal groups: Group A underwent supine mini-PCNL, while Group B underwent RIRS. Stone and patient characteristics, SFR, and perioperative events were compared between groups.
resultsA total of 50 patients equally distributed into the 2 groups. Operative time was significantly lower in Group A than in Group B (P < .05), while fluoroscopic time was significantly higher in Group A than in Group B (P < .05). Also, hospital stay was significantly longer in Group A compared to Group B (P < .001). SFR and retreatments were comparable between both groups. Complications were also similar, with no significant differences observed.
conclusionsSupine mini-PCNL remains an effective option for achieving high stone clearance with a shorter operative time while avoiding ureteral access manipulation, while RIRS provides advantages such as reduced radiation exposure, shorter hospitalization but with a higher need for stenting and secondary procedures. Supine mini- PCNL is not inferior to RIRS in the treatment of less than 2 cm renal stones. Cite this article as: Abdelgawad AH, Elhawy MA, Hussein AAHF, Fathelbab TK, Tolba AKR, Fawzy AM. Retrograde intrarenal renal surgery versus supine mini percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in treatment of renal pelvic stones less than 2 cm, randomized clinical study. Urol Res Pract. 2025;51(6): 230-236.
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.