Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
https://doi.org/10.1...arrow_drop_down
https://doi.org/10.1002/146518...
Part of book or chapter of book . 2007 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
https://doi.org/10.1002/146518...
Part of book or chapter of book . 2006 . Peer-reviewed
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Authors: Nabi, Ghulam; Downey, Paul; Keeley, Francis X.; Watson, Graham M.; McClinton, Samuel;

Extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus ureteroscopic management for ureteric calculi

Abstract

Ureteral stones frequently cause renal colic and if left untreated can cause obstructive uropathy. Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy, with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the two most commonly offered interventional procedures in these patients. ESWL treatment is less invasive but has some limitations such as a high retreatment rate and lack of availability in many centres. Advances in ureteroscopy over the past decade have increased the success rate and reduced complication rates.To examine evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the outcomes of ESWL or ureteroscopy in the treatment of ureteric calculi.We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 - March 2006), EMBASE (1980 - March 2006), reference lists of articles and abstracts from conference proceedings without language restriction.RCTs comparing ESWL with ureteroscopic retrieval of ureteric stones were included. Participants were adults with ureteric stones requiring intervention. Published and unpublished sources were considered.Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or weighted mean difference (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Six RCTs (833 patients) were included. The stone-free rates were lower in the ESWL group (RR 0.84 95% CI 0.73 to 0.96). The retreatment rates were lower but not significant in the ureteroscopy group (RR 3.34 95% CI 0.82 to 13.62). The rate of complications was lower in the ESWL group (RR 0.48 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91). Length of hospital stay was less for ESWL treatment (MD -2.10 95% CI -2.55 to -1.64).Ureteroscopic removal of ureteral stones achieves a higher stone-free state but with a higher complication rate and a longer hospital stay.

Keywords

Adult, Ureteral Calculi, Ureteroscopy [adverse effects, Ureteral calculi [*therapy], 610, Lithotripsy [adverse effects, *methods], name=Pharmacology (medical), Randomized controlled trials as topic, Lithotripsy, /dk/atira/pure/subjectarea/asjc/2700/2736, Ureteroscopy, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    57
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
57
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!