Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27890653›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2016

Recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies: A systematic review update.

H E Elmansy, J E Lingeman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Survey of the quality and origins of websites on penile low-intensity shockwave therapy in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    Article
  7. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Nanoparticle-assisted ultrasound: A special focus on sonodynamic therapy against cancer.Chemical engineering journal (Lausanne, Switzerland : 1996) · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Treatment of renal lower pole stones: an update.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

H E ElmansyDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
J E LingemanDepartment of Urology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: jlingeman@IUHealth.org.

Funding

SWL AND RENAL INJURY AND STONE COMMINUTIONP01DK043881 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LIU, ZIYUE · 1994 to 2023
$33.5M
NIDDK NIH HHS P01 DK043881
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is a well - established treatment option for urolithiasis. The technology of SWL has undergone significant changes in an attempt to better optimize the results while reducing failure rates. There are some important limitations that restrict the use of SWL. In this review, we aim to place these advantages and limitations in perspective, assess the current role of SWL, and discuss recent advances in lithotripsy technology and treatment strategies.

methodsA comprehensive review was conducted to identify studies reporting outcomes on ESWL. We searched for literature (PubMed, Embase, Medline) that focused on the physics of shock waves, theories of stone disintegration, and studies on optimising shock wave application. Relevant articles in English published since 1980 were selected for inclusion.

resultsEfficacy has been shown to vary between lithotripters. To maximize stone fragmentation and reduce failure rates, many factors can be optimized. Factors to consider in proper patient selection include skin - to - stone distance and stone size. Careful attention to the rate of shock wave administration, proper coupling of the treatment head to the patient have important influences on the success of lithotripsy.

conclusionProper selection of patients who are expected to respond well to SWL, as well as attention to the technical aspects of the procedure are the keys to SWL success. Studies aiming to determine the mechanisms of shock wave action in stone breakage have begun to suggest new treatment strategies to improve success rates and safety.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicHumansLithotripsyPatient SelectionUrolithiasisLithotripsyLithotripterShock wave generationUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID27890653
PMCPMC5504471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.