Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31144092›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

Comparative evaluation of tissue damage induced by ultrasound and impact dual-mode endoscopic lithotripsy versus conventional single-mode ultrasound lithotripsy.

Wael Khoder, Frank Strittmatter, Abdulmajeed Alghamdi, Michael Seitz, Christian Stief, Markus Juergen Bader

Abstract readComparative Study
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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Single-Center Experience with Swiss LithoClastDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Wael KhoderDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Frank StrittmatterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany.
Abdulmajeed AlghamdiDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany.
Michael SeitzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany.
Christian StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany.
Markus Juergen BaderDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany. markus-j-bader@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4426-8730
München Klinik · DEUniversity Medical Center Freiburg · DEUrologische Klinik München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of our study was to perform comparative investigation of the tissue safety of three different endoscopic lithotripter devices including a new single-probe/dual-energy lithotripter in an in vivo animal model. The Swiss LithoClast Trilogy was compared to the Storz Calcuson and the Swiss LithoClast Vario. The safety test simulated the accidental direct contact between lithotripter probes and the urothelium, which can occur when sliding off a stone or drilling through a calculus during lithotripsy. The safety test included a smallest (1.5 mm) and largest (3.3/3.4 mm) probe diameter per device.

methodsTesting was performed in nine pigs (three animals per device). The bladder tissue was exposed to direct lithotripter probe contact at maximum power for 10 s to produce visible tissue lesions. Acute tissue trauma was evaluated using a simplified scoring model describing the expected bladder wall injuries for histological examination. After 7 days, all animals were killed, necropsied and examined post mortem. For between-group comparisons regarding microscopic histopathologic features, a Chi-square test was used. A p value < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

resultsIrrespective of the lithotripter used, no systemic signs of toxicity were observed. Histologically, signs of normal ongoing healing were observed on the bladder mucosa. There were no significant differences in histological findings taking changes of the epithelium (p = 0.360), the leucocyte infiltration (p = 0.123), the vascular congestion (p = 0.929) and the edema (p = 1.0) between the groups into account.

conclusionsThe results of this study demonstrated a comparable safety between all lithotripsy devices.

Indexed as

EndoscopyUltrasonography, InterventionalAnimalsFemaleHumansLithotripsySwineUrinary BladderEndoscopic lithotripsyPCNLStone disease, ureteroscopytechnologyTissue damageUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID31144092
OpenAlexW2947949868

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.