↓ Skip to main content

Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10–35 mm

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Urology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
Ultra-mini PCNL versus flexible ureteroscopy: a matched analysis of analgesic consumption and treatment-related patient satisfaction in patients with renal stones 10–35 mm
Published in
World Journal of Urology, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00345-015-1585-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Konrad Wilhelm, Simon Hein, Fabian Adams, Daniel Schlager, Arkadiusz Miernik, Martin Schoenthaler

Abstract

To compare ultra-mini PCNL (UMP) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) for the treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones with a focus on patients' postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption and treatment-related satisfaction. Twenty-five patients treated by UMP between April 2013 and October 2014 were matched to data of 25 fURS patients from an existing database. Clinical outcome parameters were recorded prospectively. Postoperative analgesic consumption was assessed using the Cumulative Analgesic Consumption Score (CACS), and satisfaction was measured with the Freiburg Index of Patient Satisfaction (FIPS) questionnaire. Perioperative outcome parameters showed no significant differences except for mean operating times (fURS 98.52 min, UMP 130.12 min [p = 0.002]) and hospital stay (fURS 67.2 h, UMP 91.5 h [p = 0.04]). Primary stone-free rate was 96 % in fURS and 92 % in UMP. Complications Clavien grade 2 or 3 occurred in 16 % of UMP patients and in 4 % of fURS patients. Postsurgical cumulative analgesic consumption was almost identical in both groups with CACSs of 6.96 (0-15) for fURS and 6.8 (0-23) for UMP. Patients' satisfaction was high in both techniques: FIPS score in fURS 1.67 (1-3) and 1.73 (1-4) in UMP (scale 1-6). Treatment of medium- to large-sized renal stones is safe and highly effective by both UMP and fURS. Moreover, both treatments yield comparable postsurgical analgesic requirements and high patient satisfaction scores. Patient-related factors (anatomical and stone related) and availability of technical equipment and surgical expertise appear to be the most important determining factors in treatment planning.

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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 13 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 40%
Engineering 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 14 33%
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 21 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,410,971
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#1,717
of 2,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,997
of 264,453 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#31
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,095 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 264,453 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.