ArticleWideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques2025
Comparison of 2 different fluoroscopy activation intervals in shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized study.
Article in Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIntermittent fluoroscopic controls are required during shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) to readjust the probe due to patients' movements, respiratory movement, and stone displacement within the kidney. However, there is still no consensus in the literature on the optimal frequency of fluoroscopic monitoring.
aimOur aim was to determine the optimal fluoroscopy activation interval in fluoroscopy‑guided SWL and examine its effect on fluoroscopy time and stone‑free status. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective randomized study included patients with opaque renal pelvic stones smaller than 2 cm, subjected to fluoroscopy‑guided SWL between July 2020 and January 2024. The patients were divided into 2 groups. Fluoroscopic control was performed every 250 shocks in group 1, and every 500 shocks in group 2. Demographic data, calculus volume and density, skin‑to‑stone distance, number of shots and sessions, fluoroscopy duration, and stone‑free status were analyzed.
resultsThe data of 158 randomly included patients (equally divided between both groups) were analyzed. No differences were observed between the groups in terms of demographic data and stone parameters. However, there was a difference in fluoroscopy time, which was longer in group 1 than in group 2 (mean [SD], 217.9 [90.2] vs 117 [37] s, respectively; P <0.001). No differences in stone‑free status between the groups were observed (group 1; 64.5%; group 2, 67%; P = 0.87).
conclusionsReducing fluoroscopy activation interval in SWL does not affect stone‑free status, but it helps limit radiation exposure.
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.