Trial reportUrolithiasis2026
Retrograde ureteral catheterization in percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be omitted in selected patients: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06750913 (Retrograde Ureteral Catheterization Is Not Essential in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy), which is not on this 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.
Retrograde Ureteral Catheterization Is Not Essential in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) performed without retrograde catheterization in the split-leg prone position in selected patients, a single-center, randomized controlled trial was carried out. 140 consecutive patients with renal stones > 2.0 cm were randomly assigned to either no ureteral catheterization split-leg prone position (NUC-SLP) group or the traditional position (TP) group, and underwent PCNL. The primary outcome was first access time. Secondary outcomes included operative time, anesthesia time, stone free rate (SFR), complications, and costs. It was noted in the RCT that, median first access time was comparable between the NUC-SLP and TP groups (10.5 [9.2, 12.5] min vs. 10.5 [8.5, 11.89] min; mean difference (MD) 0.66 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.29 to 1.6; p > 0.05). The NUC-SLP group had shorter anesthesia time (77.07 ± 14.47 vs. 95.83 ± 12.22 min; MD -18.76 min, 95% CI -23.24 to -14.29; p < 0.001) and lower costs (22,053.76 ± 2,473.46 vs. 23,499.81 ± 3,863.34 Chinese Yuan (CNY), MD -1446.05 CNY, 95% CI -2531.86 to -360.23; p = 0.009). No significant difference was observed in the immediate or 1-month SFR, operative time or complications. In conclusion, retrograde ureteral catheterization may be omitted in selected patients undergoing PCNL, which simplifies the procedure, and reduces medical costs. Nevertheless, the applicability of these findings is constrained by the highly selective nature of the patient cohort (non-complex cases) and the substantial expertise of the senior endourologists, who are specifically adept at ultrasound-guided renal access and split-leg prone PCNL. Further multicenter studies involving surgeons with different levels of experience are required to validate these findings and define the optimal selection criteria.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06750913; April 8, 2026.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42667381What 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.