Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Its role in the treatment of urolithiasis and our experience
Asian Journal of Urology, ISSN: 2214-3882, Vol: 5, Issue: 4, Page: 295-302
2018
- 56Citations
- 41Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations56
- Citation Indexes56
- 56
- CrossRef50
- Captures41
- Readers41
- 41
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Safety and efficacy of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of renal stones in pediatric age group
Abstract Background Currently, kidney stones are frequently observed in children and teens. Objectives To evaluate the safety and efficacy of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in managing
Review Description
Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures have gained increased popularity in recent years. They aim to reduce percutaneous tract size in order to lower complication rates, while maintaining high stone-free rates. Recently, miniaturized PCNL techniques have further expanded, and can currently be classified into mini-PCNL, minimally invasive PCNL (MIP), Chinese mini-PCNL (MPCNL), ultra-mini-PCNL (UMP), micro-PCNL, mini-micro-PCNL, and super-mini-PCNL (SMP). However, despite its minimally-invasive nature, its potential superiority in terms of safety and efficacy when compared to conventional PCNL is still under debate. The aim of this review is to summarise different available modalities of miniaturized PCNL, details of instruments involved, and their corresponding safety and efficacy. In particular, this article highlights the role of the SMP and our experience with this novel technique in management of urolithiasis. Overall, miniaturized PCNL techniques appear to be safe and effective alternatives to conventional PCNL for both adult and pediatric patients. Well-designed, randomized studies are required to further investigate and identify specific roles of miniaturized PCNL techniques before considering them as standard rather than alternative procedures to conventional PCNL.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388218300328; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.05.001; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85062785467&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30364479; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2214388218300328; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajur.2018.05.001
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know