ArticleCentral European journal of urology2018
A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Can We Identify Patients in Danger of Complications in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery?-A Retrospective Risk Factors Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAvailability of flexible ureteroscopes is still limited in many countries and centers. Under such circumstances treating small stones pushed from the ureter to the kidney that pose a risk of symptomatic recurrence is controversial as it may require a number of surgical procedures to remove. The aim of this study was to assess the type and number of procedures used to treat stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in a high volume urological center with limited access to flexible instruments. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients treated for ureteral stones in years 2013-2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All procedures performed after stone relocation were counted. Final stone status was determined by ultrasonography and radiography.
resultsOut of 75 patients with a stone relocated to the collecting system full follow-up was available for 66. In three patients (4%) the stone remained in the collecting system untreated. Seven patients (11%) passed their stones spontaneously. Active treatment was successful in 45 (68%), while it failed in 11 (17%) patients. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was used 132 times, semi-rigid ureteroscopy 21 times and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy 22 times - 175 procedures altogether (2.6 procedures/patient + accessory procedures such as JJ removal). Shockwave lithotripsy was effective in 7/41 patients, semi-rigid ureteroscopy in 18/21 and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in 22/22 patients.
conclusionsTreating small stones relocated from the ureter to the collecting system in centers not equipped with flexible endoscopes is inefficient, time-consuming or too invasive. Cost-effectiveness analysis should follow this study to obtain evidence for public health payers to change their policies.
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.