SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Efficacy and safety of papillary vs non-papillary access to the calyces in patients undergoing percutaneous lithotripsy: a GRADE-assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.
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
backgroundPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) access is traditionally obtained via papillary puncture to minimize bleeding, though non-papillary access is frequently utilized in everyday clinical practice due to practical considerations such as anatomical variations and stone location. Because existing comparative studies have yielded inconsistent findings, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize existing evidence evaluating the safety and efficacy of papillary versus non-papillary access during PCNL.
methodsA comprehensive systematic search of databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov, alongside grey literature, was conducted from inception until December 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing papillary and non-papillary access for renal calculi in patients undergoing PCNL were included. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) alongside their 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsA total of six studies comprising 856 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the papillary and non-papillary access groups regarding hemoglobin drop (MD 0.09 g/dL, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.37), transfusion rates (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74), changes in postoperative serum creatinine levels (MD 0.02 mg/dL, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.07), duration of hospital stay (MD 0.08 days, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.44), stone-free status (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.89), or operative duration (MD 2.81 min, 95% CI -2.06 to 7.68). Heterogeneity across most outcomes was minimal. Meta-regression identified stone size as the only significant moderator, which negatively influenced operative duration.
conclusionPapillary and non-papillary access techniques during PCNL appear to provide comparable clinical outcomes with no significant differences in major perioperative parameters. The clinical decision-making regarding the selection of access technique should be individualized, considering patient anatomy, stone characteristics, and surgical expertise rather than strict adherence to a single standardized puncture strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42067742What 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.