ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Inflammatory Parameters Following Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and Ureteroscopy for the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Balancing Stone Prevention and Kidney Function: A Therapeutic Dilemma.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Inflammation can arise as a consequence of both extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) treatments. Alterations in inflammatory parameters may serve as indicators of kidney injuries and the ensuing inflammation. This study aims to investigate the effects of ESWL and URS procedures on inflammatory parameters for proximal ureteral stone treatment. Materials and methods A prospective interventional study comprised 120 patients with confirmed stones measuring less than 10 mm in the upper half of the proximal ureter. These patients were randomly assigned to either the ESWL or URS treatment groups. Laboratory analyses encompassed interleukin-6 (IL-6), leukocyte count, fibrinogen levels, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), which were assessed prior to the intervention, on the first postoperative day, and six months later. IL-6 levels in the serum were determined using a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). Results There was no significant difference in IL-6 levels between pre-intervention and the first post-intervention day in patients treated with ESWL (1.8 (1.4-2.59) pg/mL vs. 2.33 (1.22-3.19) pg/mL). However, for patients treated with URS, the pre-intervention IL-6 value was 2.9 (1.9-3.34) pg/mL, and it increased significantly to 7.1 (3.85-28.07) pg/mL on the first post-intervention day (p<0.001). On the first post-intervention day, levels of IL-6, CRP, leukocyte count, and ESR were significantly higher in patients treated with URS compared to ESWL (p<0.001; p<0.001; p=0.03; p=0.03, respectively). Conclusion Our research findings suggest that monitoring IL-6 levels can offer valuable insights into the degree of inflammation and tissue damage during and following observed procedures, particularly among patients undergoing URS, even within the initial days post-procedure.
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.