Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This systematic review highlights inconsistencies in defining RSFs, with common thresholds being < 2 mm, < 4 mm, or < 5 mm. CT is noted as the most reliable method for assessing fragment size and location. RSFs over 4 mm, particularly in the lower pole, are associated with higher risks of progression and complications. The review advocates to adopt standardized definitions and imaging protocols to enhance comparability and patient outcomes.
Cavdar et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: