ArticleCureus2024
Which Method Is More Effective for the Treatment of 1-2 cm Renal Pelvis Stones in Obese Patients: Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy or Flexible Ureterorenoscopy?
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Equal-power Ho:YAG laser energy-frequency modulation during RIRS for renal pelvis stones: 0.3 J × 50 Hz vs. 1.5 J × 10 Hz.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors affecting the efficacy and stone clearance rate of super-mini PCNL (SMP) versus standard PCNL (sPCNL) in the treatment of different sizes of renal stones.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of obese patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) for treating 1-2 cm renal pelvic stones.
methodsThis study included 89 patients with a body mass index (BMI) >30 who underwent ESWL and FURS surgeries for 10-20 mm renal pelvic stones between January 2015 and July 2023. Three months after the treatments, patients underwent full abdominal computed tomography (CT) and were examined for stone-free status and the presence of residual stones. The presence of ≥4 mm residual stones on imaging was considered a failure, and these patients were treated again. Demographic data, stone characteristics, stone-free rate (SFR) three months after the procedure, surgery/procedure time, and complications such as bleeding, urosepsis, and collecting system perforation were compared between the groups.
resultsThe patients included in the study were divided into two groups: ESWL (n=46) and FURS (n=43). Demographic and clinical data were similar between the groups. Retreatment rates were higher in the ESWL group compared to the FURS group. The mean procedure time was similar between the groups (p=0.085). The three-month SFR was found to be higher in the FURS group (88.3% vs. 73.9%; p=0.043). There was no difference in complication rates between groups.
conclusionFURS is a more effective treatment method than ESWL in obese patients with stones 1-2 cm in size located in the renal pelvis.
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.