ArticleUrology annals
Factors that affect outcome of pediatric shock waves lithotripsy with sedoanalgesia.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- New advances in efficacy prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatrics: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- [Current aspects in pediatric urolithiasis treatment].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPerforming shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) under intravenous sedoanalgesia and the ability to predict the effectiveness of SWL is essential in determining the most appropriate treatment for patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study consisted of 56 children aged between 1 and 16 years mean age 6.7 ± 4.3 years with renal and ureteric stones who underwent SWL. Incomplete child data were excluded from the study, leaving 47 patients. The procedure was performed under sedoanalgesia with diazepam and ketamine was given intravenously during SWL session. We study the effect of the following factors (age, site, size, opacity of stone, degree of pelvicalyceal dilation, previous urological surgery, number of shock waves, and number of sessions) on stone clearance after SWL.
resultsForty-seven children range from 1 to 16 years, mean age 6.7 ± 4.3 years. There were 39 (83%) with renal stone and 8 (17%) with ureteric stone. The mean size of stone was 12.2 ± 4.4 mm ranging 6-25 mm. Of 47 children, 36 (76.6%) were stone-free. Age below 6 years, pelvic stones, children without surgery, number of shock waves, and number of sessions were significant factors that affect the stone-free rate after SWL, while the stone size, opacity, and calyceal system dilatation were not statistically significant factors.
conclusionsThe present analysis shows that stone-free status for children with urolithiasis depends on the age of presentation, previous history of ipsilateral stone treatment, stone location, and number of sessions. Pediatric lithotripsy under intravenous sedoanalgesia is feasible, general anesthesia is not mandatory, and any anesthetic complications were not encountered.
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.