ArticleCureus2020
Comparison of Ureteroscopic Pneumatic Lithotripsy and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Proximal Ureteral Calculi.
Article in Cureus, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- A study based on reverse network pharmacology of kidney stones identified that quercetin targets the myosin light chain kinase/myosin light chain 2 pathway in human renal HK-2 cells.Asian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Does Shock Wave Application Affect the Ureteral Wall Around an Impacted Stone? A Critical Evaluation Focusing on Ureteral Wall Thickness.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave compared to ureteroscopic lithotripsy for the treatment of ureteral stones.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- A nomogram for predicting the risk of residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
- Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Type and Outcome of Ureteral Stones Treatments.Advanced biomedical research · 2023Article
- Complementary Ureterorenoscopy after extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: success and complications.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2022Article
- Determining whether previous SWL for ureteric stones influences the results of ureteroscopy as the second-line treatment: A clinical study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness and complications of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of patients with proximal ureteral stones. Methods In this trial, 150 patients presenting with proximal ureteral stones at the Department of Urology of Nishter Hospital Multan from November 2018 to November 2019 were allocated 1:1 to undergo URS or SWL. The presence of stone fragments <4 mm on follow-up was regarded as being stone free. The study outcomes included stone-free rates after first, second, and third treatment sessions and stone retropulsion into the kidneys. Results A total of 75 patients each underwent URS and SWL. The mean procedure times for SWL and URS were 61.61± 3.21 and 85.01±6.75 minutes, respectively (P=0.000), and the mean numbers of procedures were 1.51±0.49 and 1.01±0.42, respectively (P=0.000). Stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of SWL were 64%, 77.3%, and 94.7%, respectively, whereas stone-free rates after the first, second, and third sessions of URS were 86.7%, 92%, and 100%, respectively. Rates of stone retropulsion into the kidneys in the SWL and URS groups were 0% and 6.7%, respectively (P=0.000). Conclusion Compared with SWL, URS had significantly higher stone-free rates in patients with proximal ureteral stones. Treatment costs and hospital stay were lower in the SWL group, whereas complication rates were comparable.
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.