ArticleUrolithiasis2016
The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature.World journal of urology · 2017Pooled it
- Prospective randomized trial comparing mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of medium-sized high-density renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2026Trial
- Impact of advanced lithotripter technology on SWL success: ınsights from Modulith SLK ınline outcomes.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Prematurely falling out of favour? A 7 year retrospective study from an Australian high-volume centre.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Predictors of stone-free rate after a single-session extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for a single kidney stone measuring 10 to 20 mm: A private center experience.Current urology · 2023Article
- The New Lithotripsy Index predicts success of shock wave lithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Clinical application of the therapeutic ultrasound in urologic disease: Part II of therapeutic ultrasound in urology.Investigative and clinical urology · 2022Review
- Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Review
- Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.BMC urology · 2020Article
- Ultraslow versus slow-rate shockwave lithotripsy in the management of renal stone: A randomized controlled trial.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many centres favour endourological management over shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. International guidelines support all available modalities for the treatment of these stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SWL in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal stones. From January 2013 to October 2014, all patients with a renal stone measuring between 10 and 20 mm in maximum diameter on CT scan that were eligible for lithotripsy were included. 130 consecutive patients were evaluated. Demographics, location of stone within the kidney, number of SWL sessions and treatment outcomes were analysed. Treatment success was classified into complete stone clearance and the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments <4 mm (CIRF). 119 patients (92 %) completed treatment and radiological follow-up. Eleven patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data. The mean age was 56.8 (23-88). Male to female ratio was 1.9:1 (78:41) and the mean BMI was 28.4 (17.9-58). The mean stone size was 12.8 mm (10-14 mm: n = 87; 15-20 mm: n = 32). The mean number of treatments was 2.14 and 2.82 for stones 10-14 and 15-20 mm, respectively. Overall treatment success was 66.4 % (combined complete stone clearance and CIRFs). Subdivided by stone size <15 mm and ≥15 mm, the success rate was 70.4 and 53.1 %, respectively. The treatment success by stone location was 65, 64 and 70 % for upper, middle and lower pole stones, respectively and 67 % for PUJ stones. For those who failed SWL treatment, the majority 50 % (n = 20) were managed expectantly, 42.5 % (n = 17) required URS, and 7.5 % (n = 3) required PNL. This study suggests that SWL has an efficacy for treating larger renal stones (10-20 mm) that is equivalent to success rates for smaller stones in other series. As a low-risk and non-invasive procedure SWL should be considered a first-line treatment for these stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26743071What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.