ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024
Comparative analysis of renal calculi treatment via different extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) pathways.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large kidney stones: A retrospective comparative study.World journal of clinical cases · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) for treating renal calculi under different shock wave pathways.
methodsThis study involved a prospective analysis of clinical data obtained from 264 eligible patients with renal stones treated at the Urology Department of Shanxi Bethune Hospital between January 2021 and June 2023. Among these patients, 125 underwent ESWL via the dorsal shock wave pathway (Group A), while 139 patients underwent ESWL via the ipsilateral clavicular midline shock wave pathway (Group B). Preoperatively, all patients underwent non-contrast abdominal CT (NCCT) scans to assess stone count, diameter, CT values, and Skin-to-Stone Distance (SSD). Intraoperatively, ultrasonography was utilized to remeasure SSD and monitor stone fragmentation continuously. The ESWL procedure employed a standardized intermittent stepwise energy escalation technique until treatment completion. Various metrics, including intraoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, number of shocks, total shock wave energy, stone-free rate (SFR) at 4 weeks post-operation, and postoperative complication rates, were recorded and subjected to statistical analysis.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding gender, age, BMI, stone count, stone diameter, stone CT values, intraoperative VAS pain scores, and postoperative complication rates (P>0.05). Preoperative SSD was significantly higher in Group B than in Group A (P<0.05), but there were no significant differences in intraoperative SSD between the groups (P>0.05). Group B showed significantly lower total shock wave energy and number of shocks compared to Group A (P<0.05). The stone-free rate (SFR) after 4 weeks did not exhibit significant differences between the groups (P>0.05). However, when the stone diameter was ≥1.3 cm, the SFR at 4 weeks post-operation in Group B was significantly higher than in Group A (P<0.05).
conclusionESWL emerges as a safe and efficacious approach for treating renal calculi. Our findings suggest that utilizing the ipsilateral clavicular midline shock wave pathway in ESWL necessitates less shock wave energy and enhances efficiency, particularly in cases with larger stone burdens.
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.