ArticleCureus2025
Efficacy and Safety of Pneumatic Lithotripsy for Ureteric Stones: A Retrospective Analysis From Sudan.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Ureteric stone management has undergone a transformation since the advent of different types of lithotripters. Although holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser lithotripsy has been considered the gold standard of choice for several centers, it is limited in availability in underdeveloped/low-resource areas. Pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) is still a relatively inexpensive and widely available modality. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PL as an alternative to laser lithotripsy in low-income settings. Methods Retrospective data from 215 patients treated at our center using ureteroscopic PL for ureteric stones between January 2020 and January 2023 were used to conduct this analysis. Patient demographic information, characteristics of the stones (location and size), operating time, stone-free rate (SFR) of the patients, complications, and length of hospitalization were all documented and assessed. Results The average age of the patients included in the study was 42.5 ± 11.8 years old; 147 (68.4%) patients were men. Most of the stones were in the lower ureter (153, 71.2%); the mean diameter of the stones was 12.1 ± 3.5 mm. The overall initial SFR was 192 (89.3%). Patients had a higher SFR for stones in the lower ureter (145, 94.7%) than the middle (31, 85.2%) and upper ureter (20, 76.9%) (p<0.05). The mean operative time was 45.2 ± 15.7 minutes. Complications were experienced by 45 (20.9%) patients. Minor complications were observed in 40 (18.6%) patients, most commonly postoperative hematuria and colic. Major complications were rare (5, 2.3%) and included two cases of ureteral perforation and three cases of steinstrasse, which required intervention. Conclusion PL provides effective and safe treatment of ureteric stones, especially stones in the lower ureter. Due to cost, equipment availability, and other factors related to care in resource-poor countries such as Sudan, PL continues to be a valuable and appropriate first-line treatment for ureteric stones. Therefore, PL has secured its place in the contemporary urologic treatment arsenal as a reliable and affordable alternative to laser lithotripsy.
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.