Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31098658›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Impact of previous SWL on ureterorenoscopy outcomes and optimal timing for ureterorenoscopy after SWL failure in proximal ureteral stones.

Bora Irer, Mehmet Oguz Sahin, Oguzcan Erbatu, Alperen Yildiz, Sakir Ongun, Onder Cinar, Ahmet Cihan, Mehmet Sahin, Volkan Sen, Oktay Ucer and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Bora IrerDepartment of Urology, Izmir Metropolitan Municipality Esrefpasa Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Mehmet Oguz SahinDepartment of Urology, Manisa State Hospital, Manisa, Turkey.
Oguzcan ErbatuDepartment of Urology, Celal Bayar University School of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey.
Alperen YildizDepartment of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Sakir OngunDepartment of Urology, Balikesir University School of Medicine, Balıkesir, Turkey.
Onder CinarDepartment of Urology, Bulent Ecevit University School of Medicine, Zonguldak, Turkey.
Ahmet CihanDepartment of Urology, Nigde Omer Halisdemir University School of Medicine, Nigde, Turkey.
Mehmet SahinDepartment of Urology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Volkan SenDepartment of Urology, Manisa State Hospital, Manisa, Turkey. sen_volkan@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2832-0682
Oktay UcerDepartment of Urology, Celal Bayar University School of Medicine, Manisa, Turkey.
Fuat KizilayDepartment of Urology, Ege University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Ozan BozkurtDepartment of Urology, Dokuz Eylul University School of Medicine, Izmir, Turkey.
Aegean Study Group of the Society of Urological Surgery

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to evaluate the impact of previous unsuccessful shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) therapy on ureterorenoscopy (URS) outcomes in proximal ureteral stones and to define whether there is any optimal timing for safe URS after SWL.

methodsThe patients who underwent URS for proximal ureteral stones between the years 2015 and 2018 in eight centers were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to previous SWL history; group 1 consisted of patients without SWL before URS for the stone [SWL (-)] and group 2 consisted of patients with a previous SWL for the stone [SWL (+)]. Demographics, operation outcomes and stone characteristics were compared between these two groups. Regarding the complication and success rates, optimal timing for URS after SWL for the stone was calculated with receiver operator characteristics curve analysis.

resultsTotally 638 patients were included (group 1: 466 patients and group 2: 172 patients). The operation and hospitalization times, rate of ureteral stenting and complications were significantly higher in group 2. Stone free status was similar between the groups. Optimal timing for URS after SWL was calculated as 16.5 days (AUC = 0.657, p = 0.012) with a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 72%, regarding the complication rates. Complication rates were significantly higher in patients who were operated before 16.5 days (27.7% vs 6.5%, p < 0.001).

conclusionsThe optimal timing; 2-3 weeks delay of the URS procedure after unsuccessful SWL may decrease complication rates according to our results.

Indexed as

LithotripsyAdultEndoscopyFemaleHumansKidneyLength of StayLithotripsy, LaserMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsStentsTime FactorsTreatment FailureTreatment OutcomeComplicationProximal ureteral stoneShock wave lithotripsyStoneUreterorenoscopyUrolithiasis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.