Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32277277›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2021

Comparison of stone elimination capacity and drilling speed of endoscopic clearance lithotripsy devices.

Markus J Bader, Maximilian Eisel, Frank Strittmatter, Udo Nagele, Christian G Stief, Thomas Pongratz, Ronald Sroka, Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Markus J BaderUroClinic München, Residenzstraße 18, Munich, Germany. markus.bader@urologie-giesing.de.
Maximilian Eisel *Department of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany. max.eisel@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Frank StrittmatterDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Udo NageleDepartment of Urology and Andrology, General Hospital Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
Christian G StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas PongratzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ronald SrokaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group
LMU Klinikum · DEMünchen Klinik · DETirol Kliniken · ATUrologische Klinik München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the fragmentation capacity, clearance time, and drilling speed of combined ultrasonic with impact dual-energy and single energy ultrasonic lithotripter devices.

methodsStone fragmentation and clearance tests were performed under direct view in an underwater layered hemisphere by four different operators using artificial stones (n = 10/operator). Time for complete clearance was measured. Drilling tests were performed using an underwater setup, consisting of a mounting rack for fixing the lithotripter handpiece with the probe in vertical position and in contact with the stone phantom placed on one side of a balance for defined and constant contact application pressure equivalent to 450 g load. Time until complete perforation or in case of no perforation, the penetration depth after 60 s into the stone sample was recorded. Four devices, one single energy device (SED), one dual-energy dual probe (DEDP), two dual-energy single probe (DESP-1, DESP-2), with different parameters were tested.

resultsStone fragmentation and clearance speed were significantly faster for dual-energy device DESP-1 compared to all other devices (p < 0.001). Using DESP-1, the clearance time needed was 26.0 ± 5.0 s followed by DESP-2, SED and DEDP requiring 38.4 ± 5.8 s, 40.1 ± 6.3 s and 46.3 ± 11.6 s, respectively. Regarding the drilling speed, DESP-1 was faster compared to all other devices used (p < 0.05). While the drilling speed of DESP-1 was 0.69 ± 0.19 mm/s, compared to 0.49 ± 0.18 mm/s of DESP-2, 0.47 ± 0.09 mm/s of DEDP, and 0.19 ± 0.03 mm/s of SED.

conclusionsThe dual-energy/single-probe device combining ultrasonic vibrations with electromechanical impact was significantly faster in fragmentation and clearing stone phantoms as well as in drilling speed compared to all other devices.

Indexed as

LithotripsyModels, AnatomicTime FactorsUrinary CalculiDrilling speedLithotripsyPCNLStone clearanceStone fragmentationStone treatmentTechnology

Identifiers

PMID32277277
OpenAlexW3016042193

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.