ReviewWorld journal of urology2017
Shockwave lithotripsy: techniques for improving outcomes.
Review in World journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: a meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of 2 different fluoroscopy activation intervals in shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Alpha-blockers: the magic pill for endourology-The great delusion.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- RIRS with FV-UAS vs. ESWL for the management of 1-2 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients: a prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Korean Society of Endourology and Robotics (KSER) recommendation on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
- Finding the optimal candidate for shock wave lithotripsy: external validation and comparison of five prediction models.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Article
- Is it possible to predict spontaneous passage of a ureteral stone? An up-to-date comment on the current problem with new concepts concerning the patient and the stone.Central European journal of urology · 2022Article
- Negative impact of being underweight on the outcomes of single-session shockwave lithotripsy in patients with upper urinary tract calculi: a retrospective cohort study.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Extremely-slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal stones <20 mm.Investigative and clinical urology · 2021Article
- Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.BMC urology · 2020Article
- Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2019Review
- [Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018Article
- Update from third international consultation on stone disease.World journal of urology · 2017Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) remains the only effective truly non-invasive treatment for nephrolithiasis. While single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy, it has an important role to play in the management of stones. In this paper, we outline the latest evidence-based recommendations for maximizing SWL outcomes, while minimizing complications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive review of the current literature was performed regarding maximizing SWL outcomes.
resultsSeveral different considerations need to be made regarding patient selection with respect to body habitus, body mass index, anatomical location and underlying urologic abnormalities. Stone composition and stone density (Hounsfield Units) are important prognostic variables. Patient positioning is critical to allow for adequate stone localization with either fluoroscopy or ultrasound. Coupling should be optimized with a low viscosity gel applied to the therapy head first and patient movement should be limited. SWL energy should be increased slowly and shockwave rates of 60 or 90 Hz should be used. Medical expulsive therapy with alpha-blockers after SWL treatment has shown benefit, particularly with stones greater than 10 mm.
conclusionWhile single-treatment success rates may not equal those of ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy, with proper patient selection, optimization of SWL technique, and use of adjunctive treatment after SWL, success rates can be maximized while further reducing the already low rate of serious complications. SWL remains an excellent treatment option for calculi even in 2017.
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.