ArticleTurkish journal of urology2018
Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- Electroacupuncture combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is beneficial for the expulsion of ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized trial.World journal of urology · 2024Trial
- Extracorporeal shockwavelithotripsyWorld journal of critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Role of variation coefficient of stone density in determining success of shock wave lithotripsy in urinary calculi.World journal of nephrology · 2025Article
- Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave compared to ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Type and Outcome of Ureteral Stones Treatments.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- The New Lithotripsy Index predicts success of shock wave lithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021Article
- Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi.Journal of clinical and translational research · 2021Article
- A neural network-based algorithm for predicting the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2020Article
- Comparison of mean operative time in patients undergoing Ho: YAG laser lithotripsy and pneumatic lithotripsy in ureterorenoscopy for ureteric calculus.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
- Effect of Body Mass Index on complications and success rates of percutaneous nephrolithotomy-A tertiary care hospital experience.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ureteroscopic (URS) pneumatic lithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of the proximal ureteral stones in terms of stone- free rates, complications and costs involved. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe included 200 patients in Group 1 who underwent ESWL and 200 patients in Group 2 who underwent URS intervention. We used Modulith SL X lithotripter 3
resultsThe mean age in ESWL and URS groups were 39.21±13.36, and 43.13±13.65 years respectively. Mean stone size was 10.47±3.7 mm (ESWL) and 13.6±6.6 mm (URS). Stone- free rate after single procedure was (125/200 patients) 62.5% for ESWL and (168/200 patients) 84% for URS group (p=0.001). Complications included post procedure sepsis in 3 (1.5%) patient of ESWL, while 7 (3.5%) patients of URS groups. Steinstrasse was seen in 4 (2%) patients of ESWL group. No mortality was seen in both groups. Mean costs for ESWL were US $320±50 while US $1100±150 for URS group (p=0.001).
conclusionThe stone-free rates after single procedure were significantly higher for the URS group while the complication rates were comparable in both groups. Treatment costs were significantly lower for the ESWL group.
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.