ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Preoperative JJ stenting vs. percutaneous nephrostomy vs. primary flexible ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones: a RIRSearch study with case-control matching.
Article 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of three treatment approaches-primary flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), preoperative double-J (JJ) stenting, and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN)-in patients with single proximal ureteral stones, including those with varying degrees of preoperative hydronephrosis.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of the data from the multicentric RIRSearch group (April 2017-September 2024). Patients with a single proximal ureteral stone were categorized into three groups: preoperative PCN (Group 1), preoperative JJ stent (Group 2), and primary surgery (Group 3). We conducted a case-control matching analysis to equalize the properties and ensure comparability between the groups in terms of age, stone volume, and preoperative hydronephrosis. The primary outcomes included stone free rate (SFR), surgical duration, length of hospitalization, and perioperative/postoperative complications, including fever and urinary tract infections (UTI).
resultsInitially, 551 patients were included. After case-control matching, the analysis included 42, 75, and 80 patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. No significant differences were detected in SFR (76.2%, 84.0%, 78.5%; p = 0.536) or postoperative fever/UTI rates (11.9%, 8.0%, 3.8%; p = 0.232). The operative duration was significantly longer in the preoperative PCN group (74.2 ± 28.1 min) compared with the JJ stent (56.9 ± 23.1 min) and primary fURS groups (61.0 ± 25.8 min) (p = 0.002).
conclusionFor single proximal ureteral calculi, primary fURS, preoperative JJ stenting, and preoperative PCN exhibit similar efficacy and safety in terms of SFR and postoperative complications, including UTI and fever. Although PCN provides effective drainage, it may extend surgery. Personalized therapy selection and prospective randomized trials are needed to optimize management approaches.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42517929What 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.