ArticleWorld journal of urology2023
Evaluation of the efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal impacted ureter stones based on a new scoring standard: a bicentric matched-pair analysis.
Article in World journal of urology, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath combined with flexible ureteroscopy for proximal impacted ureter stones: a retrospective case series.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) in the treatment of proximal impacted ureter stones (PIUS) based on a new scoring standard in two medical centers.
methodsThe data of 45 patients with Complicated PIUS (total stone score ≥ 3) and 350 with Simple PIUS (total stone score < 3) who underwent URSL were collected in this retrospective study between January 2015 and June 2022. The definition and scoring standards for preoperative high-risk factors associated with stones included whether the diameter of the stone was > 2 cm, stone density was > 1000 HU, there was a history of lithotripsy, the degree of hydronephrosis was greater than moderate, and there was an infection. Scores for stones were then assigned (yes = 1, no = 0), and the Complicated stone case was defined as a total stone score ≥ 3; the Simple stone case was defined as a total stone score < 3. During the same period, 45 patients were selected from the patients with Simple stone cases as the control group, matched at a 1:1 ratio to index Complicated stone cases with regard to age, sex, and BMI. Perioperative data were compared between the two groups.
resultsAll 90 operations were successfully completed. Compared to the Simple cases group, the surgical duration of the Complicated group was significantly longer (59.69 ± 28.06 min vs. 73.46 ± 27.12 min, p < 0.05), and stone-free rate (SFR) was significantly lower (88.89 vs. 68.9%, p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in complication rate between the two groups regarding Clavien grade I, II, or III complications (20.0% in Complicated cases group vs. 8.9% in Simple cases group, p = 0.037). As for the length of the hospital stay and the total treatment cost, the two groups have no difference.
conclusionFor Simple stone cases, URSL had a better SFR and higher surgical efficacy, whereas complicated stone cases had a high complication rate and long operation time. Thus, we suggest that URSL is the preferred choice for Simple stone cases rather than complicated stone cases.
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.