↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of kidney stones up to 2 cm in patients with solitary kidney: a single centre experience

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Urology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of kidney stones up to 2 cm in patients with solitary kidney: a single centre experience
Published in
BMC Urology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12894-017-0200-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunjin Bai, Xiaoming Wang, Yubo Yang, Ping Han, Jia Wang

Abstract

To compare the treatment outcomes between percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of stones larger than 2 cm in patients with solitary kidney. One hundred sixteen patients with a solitary kidney who underwent RIRS (n = 56) or PCNL (n = 60) for large renal stones (>2 cm) between Jan 2010 and Nov 2015 have been considered. The patients' characteristics, stone characteristics, operative time, incidence of complications, hospital stay, and stone-free rates (SFR) have been evaluated. SFRs after one session were 19.6% and 35.7% for RIRS and PCNL respectively (p = 0.047), but the SFR at 3 months follow-up comparable in both groups (82.1% vs. 88.3%, p = 0.346). The calculated mean operative time for RIRS was longer (p < 0.001), but the mean postoperatively hospital stay was statistically significantly shorter (p < 0.001) and average drop in hemoglobin level was less (p = 0.040). PCNL showed a higher complication rate, although this difference was not statistically significant. Satisfactory stone clearance can be achieved with multi-session RIRS in the treatment of renal stones larger than 2 cm in patients with solitary kidney. RIRS can be considered as an alternative to PCNL in selected cases.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 9 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 34%
Engineering 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 12 38%
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 10 March 2017.
All research outputs
#20,408,464
of 22,958,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#651
of 754 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#354,261
of 418,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,958,253 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 754 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 418,499 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.