SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculi: a grade-assessed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal management of medium-sized (1-3 cm) renal stones remains a clinical dilemma, with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) serving as competing minimally invasive options. To overcome the selection bias inherent in previous meta-analyses that included observational data, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both techniques by exclusively analyzing randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
methodsA systematic literature search of five databases was conducted up to February 2026. Only RCTs comparing RIRS and mPCNL were included. The primary outcomes were the single session stone-free rate (SFR) and overall complication rate. Secondary outcomes included stone clearance-related outcomes, operative performance outcomes, and recovery-related outcomes. Data were pooled using a random-effects model, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was applied.
resultsThirty RCTs encompassing 4173 patients were included. mPCNL demonstrated a significantly higher single-session SFR compared to RIRS (R.R: 0.92, 95% C.I: 0.88-0.96, p < 0.001). RIRS showed a trend toward a lower overall complication rate although the difference did not reach statistical significance (RR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-1.01; p = 0.057), reduced blood transfusion requirements, smaller hemoglobin drops, and shorter hospitalization times. However, RIRS required significantly more postoperative auxiliary procedures. Operative times and high-grade Clavien-Dindo III-V complication rates were comparable between both techniques. TSA confirmed that the cumulative evidence for single-session SFR was sufficient and conclusive, whereas TSA findings for overall complication rate should be interpreted cautiously.
conclusionsmPCNL achieves significantly higher SFR than RIRS in the management of 1-3 cm renal calculi. However, RIRS was associated with lower bleeding-related morbidity and shorter hospitalization, although no statistically significant difference was observed in the overall complication rate. Therefore, the choice between RIRS and mPCNL should be individualized, balancing maximal SFR against procedural invasiveness according to patient characteristics and stone complexity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42177692What 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.