ArticleUrologia internationalis2022
Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Pediatric Stone Disease: A 15-Year Single-Center Experience with 2 Types of Lithotripters.
Article in Urologia internationalis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of targeting and generator type on efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Biomedical papers of the Medical Faculty of the University Palacky, Olomouc, Czechoslovakia · 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
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND
objectivesWe report our experience with pediatric shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) using two types of lithotripters: Dornier HM3 (HM3) and Dornier Lithotripter SII (DLS). STUDY
designWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of children who underwent SWL between 2002 and 2016. Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of the lithotripter: during 2002-2009, we used the electrohydraulic HM3 lithotripter which was replaced in 2009 with the DLS electromagnetic lithotripter. Clinical and perioperative parameters were compared.
resultsOur cohort included 107 children who underwent SWL. Average age was 11.5 ± 5.1 years. Average stone size was 10.6 ± 4.9 mm. HM3 was used in 38% of children and DLS2 in 62% (n = 41 and 66, respectively). There were no significant differences in age, gender, stone size, or location between the groups. The total SFR did not differ statistically between HM3 and DLS (83% vs. 74%, p = 0.35). SFR after one SWL was higher with the HM3 (78% vs. 62%, p = 0.093). Re-treatment rate was 22% and 17% (HM3 vs. DLS, p = 0.61). Complication rates were low, with renal colic being the most common (HM3 10%, DLS 20%, NS).
conclusionsSWL in the pediatric population using the DLS showed good results with low complication rates that are equivalent to the gold standard HM3.
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.