Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42375724›Full record

ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026

Impact of prior shock wave lithotripsy on outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for 1-2 cm lower pole kidney stones: a comparative analysis by the EAU-YAU Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group.

Rifat Burak Ergül, Yasin Yitgin, T Emre Şener, Arman Tsaturyan, Francesco Esperto, Begona Ballesta Martinez, Ali Talyshinskii, Victoria Jahrreiss, Lazaros Tzelves, Emine Yitgin and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Central European 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Rifat Burak Ergül *Department of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey.
Yasin Yitgin *Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.
T Emre ŞenerEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Arman TsaturyanEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Francesco EspertoEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Begona Ballesta MartinezEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Ali TalyshinskiiEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Victoria JahrreissEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Lazaros TzelvesEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Emine YitginDepartment of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Turkey.
Amelia PietropaoloEAU Young Academic Urologists (YAU) Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Group Arnhem, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The study compared the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) performed as a second-line treatment following failed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) with those of primary RIRS in patients with 1-2 cm lower pole kidney stones. Material and methods: A total of 83 patients who underwent RIRS for 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi between February 2019 and September 2024 were retrospectively analyzed in this single-center study. Patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent RIRS after failed SWL (n = 43) and those who underwent primary RIRS (n = 40). Preoperative demographics, stone characteristics, operative parameters, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using R software. Results: There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of age, gender, body mass index, stone size, laterality, density, or Ito scores. The failed SWL group had significantly longer operative time (60 [55-75] vs 55 [40-66] min, p = 0.041), RIRS time (45 [37.5-55] vs 40 [30-46] min, p = 0.043), and fluoroscopy time (4 [3-7] vs 2 [2-4] s, p = 0.001). The stone-free rate was lower in the failed SWL group (79% vs 92%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.153). Postoperative urinary tract infections and complication rates were similar between groups (p >0.05). Conclusions: RIRS remains an effective and safe option for managing lower pole kidney stones after failed SWL. However, previous SWL may increase procedural complexity, as reflected by longer operative and fluoroscopy times. Given the retrospective single-center design and limited sample size, the study's findings should be considered exploratory and interpreted with appropriate caution pending validation in larger, multicenter cohorts.

Indexed as

lower pole kidney stonesretrograde intrarenal surgeryshock wave lithotripsystone-free rateurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID42375724
PMCPMC13312201

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.