ArticleUrology annals
Can we predict the need for intervention in steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy?
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding steinstrasse: a systematic review of definitions, clinical management, and emerging perspectives in endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus laser lithotripsy in the treatment of post-SWL steinstrasse: a randomized comparative study.World journal of urology · 2024Trial
- Risk factors for steinstrasse formation after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal pelvic stones.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Sotn ureteroscope system with vacuum suctioning device for treating complicated steinstrasse: a case series.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Scoping Review of Experimental and Clinical Evidence and Its Influence on Development of the Suction Ureteral Access Sheath.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Ureteral wall thickness as a predictor for non-invasive treatment success for steinstrasse. Can we save time?World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Grooved vs smooth ureteric stent before extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: Single-blind randomised clinical trial.Arab journal of urology · 2022Article
- Optimization of shockwave lithotripsy use for single medium sized hard renal stone with stone density ≥ 1000 HU. A prospective study.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- How to maximize the efficacy of shockwave lithotripsy.Turkish journal of urology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSteinstrasse (SS) is a known complication of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Although the majority of SS clears spontaneously, about 6% require intervention. This study was carried out to identify the factors that determine the need for intervention in SS. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study of all patients who developed steinstrasse following SWL at our center. They were divided into two groups: a) Those cleared spontaneously and b) Those required intervention. The two groups were compared with regard to demographic profile, stone factors and factors related to steinstrasse.
resultsOut of 2436 cases of SWL, 89 (3%) formed steinstrasse. The majority of the patients (35%) who required intervention had stone sizes of 10-14 mm. Coptcoat type III steinstrasse required significantly more interventions for clearance (
conclusionsEarly intervention is warranted in patients with steinstrasse where the lead fragment is >5 mm (Coptcoat type III).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.