ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Outcomes of Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy and Standard Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
Background Renal stone disease constitutes a significant global urological burden, with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) serving as the gold-standard treatment for large calculi. Mini-PCNL has emerged to reduce morbidity while preserving efficacy; however, comparative prospective evidence from South Asian settings, including Bangladesh, remains scarce. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, including efficacy and morbidity, of mini-PCNL and standard PCNL in the management of renal stones. Methods A prospective comparative study was conducted at the Department of Urology, Chittagong Medical College Hospital, Chattogram, Bangladesh, and two private hospitals in the same region from May 2019 to April 2020. A total of 100 adult patients with renal calculi (1-3 cm) were recruited through nonprobability consecutive sampling and allocated equally into two groups on the basis of surgeon discretion and intraoperative judgment: standard PCNL (24-28 Fr, n = 50) and mini-PCNL (14-20 Fr, n = 50). Operative parameters, postoperative pain (visual analog scale (VAS) score), hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, stone-free rate, renal function, and complications were compared between the groups. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and chi-square tests, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, and stone size, were comparable between the groups. Mini-PCNL demonstrated a significantly shorter access time (4.28 ± 0.57 vs 7.87 ± 0.39 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (3.75 ± 0.51 vs 5.83 ± 0.65 min, p < 0.001) but a longer operative time (94.53 ± 13.56 vs 78.60 ± 17.80 min, p < 0.001). Postoperative pain (VAS score: 5.52 ± 1.24 vs 7.04 ± 1.09, p < 0.001), hemoglobin drop (1.02 ± 0.32 vs 1.31 ± 0.79 g/dL, p = 0.018), and length of hospital stay (2.32 ± 0.46 vs 3.13 ± 0.72 days, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the mini-PCNL group. Stone-free rates, renal function outcomes, and complication rates were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusions In this study, mini-PCNL was associated with lower perioperative morbidity, shorter hospital stay, and reduced fluoroscopy exposure compared with standard PCNL, while stone clearance was comparable between the two groups. However, operative time was longer with mini-PCNL. Given the nonrandomized allocation and potential for selection bias, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Larger randomized multicenter studies are needed to confirm these observations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.