ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Single-Center Experience with Swiss LithoClast
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rapid and accurate preoperative diagnosis of urinary tract infections in urolithiasis patients: clinical validation of the HB&L system.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Ergonomics in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative analysis of musculoeskeletical and mental workload in prone vs. supine positions with two lithotripters-a pilot study.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Analysis of factors associated with postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome in patients with urine culture-positive stone lithotripsy.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The effect of isothermic irrigation fluid on ureteroscopic lithotripsy outcomes.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPCNL remains the gold standard for larger kidney stones. Reducing the operating time of PCNL and its complication rate seems to be the next logical step in optimizing this classical technique. To achieve these objectives, some new methods of lithotripsy emerge. We present the data of a single, high-volume, academic center with combined ultrasonic and ballistic lithotripsy in PCNL using the Swiss LithoClast MATERIALS AND
methodsWe designed a prospective, randomized study including patients who underwent PCNL or miniPerc with lithotripsy using the new EMS Lithoclast Trilogy or EMS Lithoclast Master. The procedure was carried out with all patients in prone position, by the same surgeon. The working channel size was 24 Fr-15.9 Fr. We evaluated the stones' features, operative time, fragmentation time, complications, stone clearance rate and stone-free rate.
resultsOur study included 59 patients, 38 females and 31 males, of an average age of 54.5 years old. The Trilogy group included 28 patients and the comparator included 31 patients. Urine culture was positive in seven cases which required seven days of antibiotics. The mean stone diameter was 35.6 mm with a mean Hounsfield unit (HU) of 710.1. The average number of stones was 2.08 (6 complete staghorn stones and 12 partial staghorn stones). A total of 13 patients presented a JJ stent (46.4%). We found a very significant difference in all the parameters favoring the Trilogy device. The most important result in our opinion is the probe active time, which was almost six times shorter in the Trilogy group. The stone clearance rate was about double in the Trilogy group, leading to shorter overall and intra-renal operating times. The overall complication rate was 17.9% in the Trilogy group and 23% in the Lithoclast Master group. The mean hemoglobin drop was 2.1 g/dL with a mean creatinine rise of 0.26 mg/dL.
conclusionsSwiss LithoClast
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.