Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29992018›Full record

ArticleClinical kidney journal2018

Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi.

Christian D Fankhauser, Thomas Hermanns, Laura Lieger, Olivia Diethelm, Martin Umbehr, Thomas Luginbühl, Tullio Sulser, Michael Müntener, Cédric Poyet

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing contemporary trends in the surgical management of urinary stone disease in adults.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
  15. Factors influencing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy efficiency for optimal patient selection.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Clinical kidney journal · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The newClinical kidney journal · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christian D FankhauserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-5488
Thomas HermannsDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Laura LiegerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Olivia DiethelmDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Martin UmbehrDepartment of Urology, City Hospital Triemli of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas LuginbühlDepartment of Urology, Spital Uster, Uster, Switzerland.
Tullio SulserDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Michael MüntenerDepartment of Urology, City Hospital Triemli of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Cédric PoyetDepartment of Urology, University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe reported success rates for treatments of kidney stones with either extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) are conflicting. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESWL and URS for previously untreated renal calculi.

methodsAll patients treated with ESWL or URS at our tertiary care centre between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patients with previously untreated kidney stones and a stone diameter of 5-20 mm were included. Stone-free, freedom from reintervention and complication rates were recorded. Independent predictors of stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates were identified by multivariable logistic regression and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.

resultsA total of 1282 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 999 (78%) underwent ESWL and 283 (22%) had URS. During post-operative follow-up, only treatment modality and stone size could independently predict stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates. After propensity score matching, ESWL showed significantly lower stone-free rates [ESWL (71%) versus URS (84%)] and fewer patients with freedom from reintervention [ESWL (55%) versus URS (79%)] than URS. Complications were scarce for both treatments and included Clavien Grade 3a in 0.8% versus 0% and Grade 3b in 0.5% versus 0.4% of ESWL and URS treated patients, respectively.

conclusionsTreatment success was mainly dependent on stone size and treatment modality. URS might be the better treatment option for previously untreated kidney stones 5-20 mm, with similar morbidity but higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions than ESWL.

Indexed as

adverse effectskidney calculilithotripsyminimally invasive surgerytreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID29992018
PMCPMC6007408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.