ArticleRevista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992)2022
Complementary Ureterorenoscopy after extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: success and complications.
Article in Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), 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.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the effect of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy application on the success and complications of ureteroscopic lithotripsy in proximal ureter stones.
methodsThe data of 87 patients who did not respond to shock wave lithotripsy and underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy were retrospectively analyzed and classified as group I, and 99 patients who received ureteroscopic lithotripsy as primary treatment were classified as group II. Demographic features, response to treatment, and preoperative and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups.
resultsThere was no difference between the two groups in terms of gender, operation times, stone sizes, and ureteroscope diameters. (p>0.05). Infective complications such as postoperative fever, pyelonephritis, and urosepsis were similar in both groups (p=0.142, p=0.291, and p=0.948). Stone migration was observed in 10 (11.5%) and 6 (6.1%) patients in groups I and II, respectively (p=0.291). Impacted stone was seen in 47 (54%) patients in group I and in 15 (15.2%) patients in group II (p<0.0001). Mucosal laceration occurred in 11 (12.6%) and 3 (3%) patients in groups I and II, respectively (p=0.028). Ureteral perforation was detected in 3 (3.4%) patients in group I and 1 (1%) patient in group II, whereas ureteral avulsion was not observed in either group (p=0.524).
conclusionsIt was concluded that the application of shock wave lithotripsy before ureteroscopic lithotripsy in proximal ureter stones did not affect the success. Although the results are similar in terms of postoperative infection, shock wave lithotripsy application has been found to increase the risk of stone impaction into the mucosa and ureteral laceration.
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.