ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
Experimental and clinical studies: a scoping review of intrarenal pressure in percutaneous nephrolithotomy.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntrarenal pressure (IRP) plays a critical role in the safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), with elevated pressures associated with inflammatory and infectious complications. This scoping review aims to synthesize experimental and clinical evidence on factors influencing IRP during PCNL and to evaluate the impact of contemporary techniques and adjunctive technologies on pressure control and clinical outcomes.
methodsA scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from inception to July 2025. Experimental and clinical studies assessing IRP during standard, miniaturized, and suction-assisted PCNL were included. Primary outcomes were mean and peak IRP and determinants of pressure variation. Secondary outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR) and pressure-related complications.
resultsThirty-five studies (13 experimental and 22 clinical) were included. Across all models, IRP was highly sensitive to irrigation modality, tract size, outflow patency, and suction use. Miniaturized PCNL systems consistently generated higher and more variable IRP due to restricted passive drainage. Gravity-fed irrigation maintained lower and more stable pressures than pressurized systems. Suction-assisted sheaths and pressure-regulated platforms significantly reduced mean and peak IRP, limited pressure fluctuations, and shortened the duration of exposure to unsafe pressure levels. Importantly, suction-assisted PCNL achieved equal or superior SFR compared with non-suction techniques.
conclusionIRP is a pivotal and modifiable element of PCNL safety. Suction-assisted and pressure-regulated technologies effectively mitigate IRP elevations without compromising efficacy. Standardization of IRP monitoring and the definition of clinically meaningful pressure thresholds are necessary to optimize future PCNL practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42862355What 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.