| Title |
Comparative study of the treatment of 20–30 mm renal stones with miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy in obese patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
World Journal of Urology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00345-018-2258-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
He-Qun Chen, Zhi-Yong Chen, Feng Zeng, Yang Li, Zhong-Qing Yang, Cheng He, Yao He |
| Abstract |
To evaluate and compare flexible ureteroscopy (f-URS) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) for 20-30 mm renal stones in obese patients regarding efficacy and safety. Between May 2011 and June 2017, 254 obese patients who had 20-30 mm kidney stone were consecutively included in the study; 106 patients underwent mPNL and 148 underwent f-URS by the same surgeon. The following parameters were retrospectively assessed: patient and stone characteristics, surgical details, perioperative outcomes, and stone-free rates (SFR). F-URS group was similar to mPNL group in terms of the mean duration of surgery (92.8 ± 26.1 vs 87.4 ± 31.5 min, P = 0.137) and the final SFR (89.1 vs 92.5%, P = 0.381). The f-URS group had significantly shorter postoperative stay (1.0 ± 0.8 vs 4.3 ± 1.7 days, P < 0.001) and lower postoperative complications (11.5 vs 26.4%, P = 0.002). However, the f-URS group had a lower SFR after first session (67.2 vs 87.4%, P < 0.001) and needed more number of procedures (1.5 ± 0.4 vs 1.3 ± 0.4, P < 0.001) than the mPNL group. MPNL has a higher efficacy (higher SFR after first session and lower number of procedures); however, f-URS offers advantages regarding safety (lower complication rate). Therefore, both options can be offered to obese patients with renal stones from 20 to 30 mm in size. Nevertheless, these results must be confirmed by further prospective randomized trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 3 | 30% |
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| China | 1 | 10% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Ireland | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 2 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 38% |
| Unknown | 8 | 62% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,948,859
of 23,081,466 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Urology
#350
of 2,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,337
of 333,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Urology
#13
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,081,466 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 333,698 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.