Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28233025›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2017

Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies.

Davide Arcaniolo, Marco De Sio, Jens Rassweiler, Jilian Nicholas, Estevão Lima, Giuseppe Carrieri, Evangelos Liatsikos, Vincenzo Mirone, Manoj Monga, Riccardo Autorino

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Davide ArcanioloUrology Unit, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Marco De SioUrology Unit, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy.
Jens RassweilerDepartment of Urology, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, Heilbronn, Germany.
Jilian NicholasUniversity Hospitals Urology Institute, Case Western Reserve University, 27100 Chardon Rd, Richmond Heights, OH, 44143, USA.
Estevão LimaLife and Health Sciences Research Institute, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Giuseppe CarrieriDepartment of Urology, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Evangelos LiatsikosDepartment of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.
Vincenzo MironeDepartment of Urology, Federico II University, Naples, Italy.
Manoj MongaGlickman Urological Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
Riccardo AutorinoUrology Unit, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. ricautor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7045-7725

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting.

methodsA systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis.

resultsFour studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37).

conclusionsEmergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.

Indexed as

AdultEmergenciesFemaleHumansLithotripsyMaleMiddle AgedTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUreteral CalculiUreteral ObstructionUreteroscopyEmergencyShock wave lithotripsyUreteral stoneUreteroscopy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.