ArticlePediatric surgery international2022
Comparative analysis of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of childhood proximal ureteral stones.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical outcomes of an intelligent pressure-controlled disposable ureteroscope for Laser lithotripsy in renal stone surgery: a retrospective matched cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- New advances in efficacy prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatrics: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aims to make a comparative analysis of the superiority of ESWL and URS in proximal ureteral stones in children.
methodsA total of 155 patients under the age of 15 were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups as Group 1 (n = 80, ESWL) and Group 2 (n = 75, URS) according to the type of procedure performed. The patients in both groups were evaluated in terms of age, gender, lateralization, stone size, stone volüme, stone density, and preoperative hydronephrosis. In addition, both methods used were compared in terms of success rate, time, cost, hospitalization and complications.
resultsThe mean age were 7.4 ± 2.1 in Group-1 and 8.1 ± 1.8 in Group-2. Demographic, clinical and laboratory data of both groups were similar. The hospitalization time, procedure time, success rate and cost were significantly higher in Group-2. The complication rate was significantly higher in Group-2 (p < 0.001). There was a significant negative correlation between ESWL success and stone volume (ρ - 0.375, p = 0.001) and stone density (ρ - 0.283, p = 0.011).
conclusionESWL can be performed as the first line treatment of proximal ureteral stones in children due to its daily use, low cost, short procedure time and low complication rate. Increasing stone volume and density reduces the success of ESWL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36565334What 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.