ArticleUrology2018
Effect of Stone Size and Composition on Ultrasonic Propulsion Ex Vivo.
Article in Urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Recent Advances in the Science of Burst Wave Lithotripsy and Ultrasonic Propulsion.BME frontiers · 2022Article
- Burst wave lithotripsy and acoustic manipulation of stones.Current opinion in urology · 2020Review
- Quantitative Assessment of Effectiveness of Ultrasonic Propulsion of Kidney Stones.Journal of endourology · 2019Article
- Innovations in Ultrasound Technology in the Management of Kidney Stones.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2019Review
- The effect of shear waves in an elastic sphere on the radiation force from a quasi-Gaussian beam.Proceedings of meetings on acoustics. Acoustical Society of America · 2018Article
- Re: Leapman et al.: Up and Away: Five Decades of Urologic Investigation in Microgravity (Urology 106:18-25).Urology · 2017Article
- Characterizing the Acoustic Output of an Ultrasonic Propulsion Device for Urinary Stones.IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control · 2017Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate in more detail the effectiveness of a new designed more efficient ultrasonic propulsion for large stones and specific stone compositions in a tissue phantom model. In the first clinical trial of noninvasive ultrasonic propulsion, urinary stones of unknown compositions and sizes up to 10 mm were successfully repositioned. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 8- to 12-mm stones of 4 different primary compositions (calcium oxalate monohydrate, ammonium acid urate, calcium phosphate, and struvite) and a renal calyx phantom consisting of a 12 mm × 30 mm well in a 10-cm block of tissue-mimicking material. Primary outcome was the number of times a stone was expelled over 10 attempts, with ultrasonic propulsion burst duration varying from 0.5 seconds to 5 seconds.
resultsOverall success rate at expelling stones was 95%. All calcium oxalate monohydrate and ammonium acid urate stones were expelled 100% of the time. The largest stone (12 mm) became lodged within the 12-mm phantom calyx 25% of the time regardless of the burst duration. With the 0.5-second burst, there was insufficient energy to expel the heaviest stone (0.88 g), but there was sufficient energy at the longer burst durations.
conclusionWith a single burst, ultrasonic propulsion successfully moved most stones at least 3 cm and, regardless of size or composition, expelled them from the calyx. Ultrasonic propulsion is limited to the stones smaller than the calyceal space, and for each burst duration, related to maximum stone mass.
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.