ArticleBMC urology2020
Comparison of ultrasound-assisted and pure fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for renal stones.
Article in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- The comparison of totally ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided shockwave lithotripsy in renal stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guidelines on the management of pediatric urolithiasis.Urolithiasis · 2024Guideline
- Radiation exposure of patients during endourological procedures.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Does ultrasound-guided ESWL improve stone-free rates for distal ureteral stones? A multicentric analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Comparison of 2 different fluoroscopy activation intervals in shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Tip-Flexible Suctioning Ureteral Access in Renal Stone Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Article
- Factors influencing the efficacy of ultrasound-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: a retrospective study.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Plain x-ray misses many ureteric calculi: Time to challenge the old dogma?BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Article
- Shock wave lithotripsy in the era of COVID-19.Urology annalsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for patients with renal stones using pure fluoroscopy (FS) or ultrasound-assisted (USa) localization with two lithotripters.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 425 patients with renal calculi who underwent SWL with either a LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter (209 cases), which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting or a Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter machine (216 cases), which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking. The patient demographic data, stone-free rates, stone disintegration rates, retreatment rates and complication rates were analyzed.
resultsThe USa group had a significantly higher overall stone-free rate (43.6 vs. 28.2%, p < 0.001) and stone disintegration rate (85.6 vs. 64.3%, p < 0.001), as well as a significantly lower retreatment rate (14.8 vs. 35.6%, p < 0.001) and complication rate (1.9 vs. 5.5%, p = 0.031) compared with the FS group. This superiority remained significant in the stone size < 1 cm stratified group. In the stone size > 1 cm group, the stone-free rate (32.4 vs. 17.8%, p = 0.028), disintegration rate (89.2 vs. 54.8%, p = 0.031) and retreatment rate (21.6 vs. 53.4%, p < 0.001) were still significantly better in the USa group, however there was no significant difference in the complication rate. The most common complication was post-SWL-related flank pain.
conclusionSWL is a safe and non-invasive way of treating renal stones. This study compared two electromagnetic shock wave machines with different stone tracking systems. LiteMed LM-9200 ELMA lithotripter, which combined ultrasound and fluoroscopic stone targeting outperformed Medispec EM-1000 lithotripter, which used fluoroscopy for stone localization and tracking, with better stone-free rates and disintegration rates, as well as lower retreatment rates and complications with possible reduced radiation exposure.
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.