SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Intrarenal pressure and clinical outcomes during suction-assisted versus conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveElevated intrarenal pressure (IRP) during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is linked to postoperative infectious morbidity. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated suction-assisted PCNL versus conventional PCNL regarding IRP and clinical outcomes.
methodsRegistered in PROSPERO (CRD420251235580), this study followed PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcome was IRP; secondary outcomes included postoperative fever, sepsis, Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2 complications, operative time, hospital stay, and stone-free rate. Random-effects models and I2 statistics were used. Bias was assessed via Cochrane ROB-2 and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsEight studies involving 1,171 patients (577 suction-assisted; 594 conventional) were included. Quantitative synthesis of six studies showed suction-assisted PCNL maintained significantly lower IRP (2.7-16.9 mmHg) compared to conventional groups (15.4 to > 30 mmHg), effectively preventing prolonged episodes of ≥ 30 mmHg. Suction-assisted PCNL was associated with significantly lower risks of postoperative fever and Clavien-Dindo ≥ 2 complications. Pooled analysis suggested reduced sepsis risk, though confidence intervals were wide due to low event rates. Suction cohorts reported no pressure-related severe infections. Additionally, suction-assisted PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times, shorter hospital stays, and higher stone-free rates. Heterogeneity was low to moderate across most outcomes.
conclusionsSuction-assisted PCNL provides superior IRP control and more favorable perioperative outcomes than conventional PCNL. While these systems appear to reduce infectious morbidity and complications, additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are required for confirmation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42390602What 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.