ArticleBMC urology2025
Which localization method is optimal in ESWL: fluoroscopy or ultrasonography?
Article in BMC urology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrinary stone disease is a common urological disorder, particularly among middle-aged individuals. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is often the first-line treatment for kidney and ureteral stones. Traditionally, fluoroscopy is used for stone targeting in ESWL, but it exposes patients and clinicians to radiation and cannot visualize non-opaque stones. Ultrasonographic targeting eliminates these issues. This study compares the advantages and disadvantages of fluoroscopy and ultrasound-targeted ESWL.
methodsAt Düzce University Hospital, 100 patients with radio-opaque stones indicated for ESWL between February 2023 and February 2024 were divided into two groups. Group A underwent ESWL with fluoroscopic targeting, while Group B used ultrasonographic targeting. Patient demographics, stone size (measured by CT), and stone locations were recorded. The number of shocks per session, energy intensity (kV), and fluoroscopy time were noted for Group A. One week after each ESWL session, patients were evaluated by ultrasound or direct radiography. Success was defined as being stone-free or having ≤ 4 mm asymptomatic residual stones after up to four sessions. Failure was defined as no results after two sessions or the need for additional treatment.
resultsThe procedure success rate was 66% for men and 78% for women, with no statistically significant gender difference (p > 0.05). Stone locations were similar in both groups. Success rates were 66% in Group A and 74% in Group B, with no significant difference (p > 0.05). Successful procedures were associated with an average patient weight of 76.6 kg, stone size of 8.9 mm, and total energy of 12.2 kV, with significant differences compared to unsuccessful procedures (p < 0.04, p < 0.04, p < 0.001, respectively). No significant differences were found between Group A and Group B in terms of age, height, BMI, stone density (HU), and number of sessions (p > 0.05).
conclusionUltrasonography is as effective as fluoroscopy for imaging and focusing during ESWL treatment. It enhances the success of ESWL for non-opaque stones and reduces radiation exposure disadvantages.
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.