Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42667381›Full record

Trial reportUrolithiasis2026

Retrograde ureteral catheterization in percutaneous nephrolithotomy may be omitted in selected patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Shoule Wang, Baorong Feng, Haoyuan Liu, Yan Yang, Wen Zhong

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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.

NCT06750913 nacompletednot on this map

Retrograde Ureteral Catheterization Is Not Essential in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled140ConditionsUrinary StonesArmsComparison between PCNL without Catheterization in the Split-leg Prone Position and Traditional PCNL
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

5 authors.

Shoule WangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Baorong FengDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Haoyuan LiuDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Yan YangDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Wen ZhongDepartment of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. gzgyzhongwen@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Kidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousUrinary CatheterizationAdultFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePatient PositioningPatient SelectionPostoperative ComplicationsProne PositionTreatment OutcomeHydronephrosisPercutaneous nephrolithotomySplit-leg proneUreteral catheter

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.