ArticleCureus2024
Prospective Evaluation of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy in Renal and Upper Ureteric Stone Treatment: Clinical Assessment and Results.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A holistic guide to effective prevention and treatment for kidney stones: a systematic review exploring anti-urolithiasis approaches.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionExtracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a widely accepted non-invasive treatment for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm due to its safety and efficacy. Despite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy remains an important modality. AIMS AND
objectiveThis prospective observational study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESWL in managing renal and upper ureteric stones measuring less than 2 cm in terms of stone clearance. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn a study conducted at a university-affiliated tertiary care hospital, 119 patients with renal and upper ureteric stones underwent extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy over a 12-month period. Data on patient demographics, stone characteristics, treatment procedures, and complications were collected. Follow-up assessments were performed at two-week intervals for up to two months post-treatment.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 39.78 years, with a mean stone size of 1.2 cm. Right kidney stones were more prevalent (61.3% [n=76]). Complications included fever (19.3% [n=23]), gross haematuria (24.3% [n=29]), and steinstrasse (21.8% [n=26]). The success rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy was 81.5% (n=97), with 18.5% (n=22) of patients requiring surgical intervention due to incomplete fragmentation or residual fragments >4 mm. Stone size and density played significant roles in treatment success.
conclusionDespite advancements in minimally invasive techniques, ESWL retains its significance as a noninvasive and effective treatment option for renal and upper ureteric stones smaller than 2 cm. Its success depends on various factors, including the stone site, size, and composition. ESWL offers advantages such as minimal morbidity, shorter hospital stays, and better patient compliance. Complications such as steinstrasse are manageable with conservative measures or ancillary procedures. While ESWL may be losing ground in some cases, its noninvasive nature and favourable outcomes make it a valuable option in the armamentarium for stone management.
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.