Trial reportUrolithiasis2026
A Study on the application of 3D printing technology in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of complex kidney stones.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the feasibility of 3D printing in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the treatment of complex renal calculi. Eighty patients with complex kidney stones admitted to Guangdong Second People's Hospital for PCNL surgery from October 1, 2021, to December 31, 2024, were randomly assigned to either the 3D printing group (40 cases) or the control group (40 cases). The 3D printing group underwent contrast-enhanced CT scanning of the urinary system. It utilized patient-specific 3D-printed models for preoperative surgical planning, simulated puncture trajectories, and patient consultations to enhance understanding of the procedure. Preoperative interview scores in the 3D printing group were significantly better than those in the control group, indicating improved patient comprehension and satisfaction. In the 3D printing group, 36 patients (90%; 95% CI: 76.9-96.0%) completed the first puncture, whereas only 20 patients (50%; 95% CI: 34.6-65.4%) in the control group did so (P < 0.001). First-stage stone clearance was achieved in 22 patients (55%; 95% CI: 39.8-69.3%) in the 3D printing group, compared with 6 patients (15%; 95% CI: 6.2-29.5%) in the control group (P = 0.002). Both differences were statistically significant, demonstrating substantial improvements in surgical outcomes in this study cohort. The application of an integrated 3D printing-assisted preoperative planning strategy in PCNL for complex kidney stones was associated with higher puncture success rates and stone clearance in this study, as well as enhanced preoperative patient education. Larger multicenter studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371104What 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.