↓ Skip to main content

Fluoroscopy-free ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients: a single-center experience

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Fluoroscopy-free ultrasonography-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients: a single-center experience
Published in
World Journal of Urology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00345-018-2184-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akbar Nouralizadeh, Farzaneh Sharifiaghdas, Hamid Pakmanesh, Abbas Basiri, Mohammad Hadi Radfar, Mohammad Hossein Soltani, Mahmoodreza Nasiri, Esmaeil Rezghi Maleki, Emal Lesha, Mohammad Ghasemi-Rad, Behzad Narouie

Abstract

To present the safety and efficacy of fluoroscopy-free ultrasound-guided PCNL for the treatment of renal calculi in pediatric patients of all ages. 30 children with mean age of 5 years (6 months-12 years) underwent totally ultrasound-guided PCNL from March 2013 to August 2016. The pyelocalyceal system was punctured in prone position using only ultrasonography guidance, and the tract was dilated using a single shot dilation technique. No fluoroscopy was used during any of the stages of renal access. The procedure was performed using adult-sized instruments. The mean stone size was 27.1 ± 8.7 mm. Mean access time was 4.3 ± 2 min. Mean nephroscopic time was 34.6 ± 15.2 min. Mean hospital stay of patients was 3 days (range 2-5). 21 patients were stone-free after the procedure (70% success rate). Only four patients out of 30 experienced postoperative complications. The results of this study showed that fluoroscopic-free ultrasound-guided PCNL in pediatric patients of all ages is safe, highly efficient, and minimizes potential radiation exposure risks associated with the procedure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 40%
Philosophy 1 5%
Unknown 11 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,506,823
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,501
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,441
of 441,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#47
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.