the influence of lithotripsy methods on the incidence of auxiliary procedures after ureteric stone desintegration
Clicks: 264
ID: 239540
2008
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
264 views
53 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #94 of 134 articles by views in applied nursing research : anr
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 134 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Introduction/Aim. Localization of ureteric stones and the difference in disintegration success are the most important but not the only factors in choosing the first treatment approach to ureteric stones. The aim of the study was to investigate the incidence of auxiliary procedures after different ureteric stones lithotripsy modalities. Methods. In a prospective bicentric study 260 patients with ureteric stones were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: group I - 120 patients subjected to extracorporeal shock ware lithotripsy (ESWL) treatment and group II - 140 patients treated endoscopicly with ballistic lithotripsy using "Swiss" Lithoclast. Results. Endoscopic treatment of all distal ureteric stones was significantly more successful than ESWL, but not significantly more successful than ESWL regarding proximal ureteric stones except for stones larger than 100 mm2 that were significantly better treated with endoscopic method. There was no general significant difference in auxiliary procedures rate after lithotripsy between the two groups. In the group I auxiliary procedures were significantly more performed than in the group II after the lithotripsy of stones larger than 100 mm2, calcium-oxalat-monohydrate stones and highly significantly more performed after the treatment of stones located in the iliac ureteric portion and impacted stones. After the lithotripsy of lumbar ureteric stones and multiple stones situated in different ureteric portions additional procedures were highly significantly more necessary in the goup II than in the group I. Conclusion. Being significantly more successful comparing to ESWL, ureteric stone treatment with "Swiss" Lithoclast should be considered the first therapeutic option for all, especially impacted stones located in iliac and pelvic ureter. In spite of a statistically significant difference in success rate, ESWL should be performed as the first treatment option in all cases of lumbar stones as well as multiple stones located in different ureteric portion because of lower auxiliary procedures rate except for stones larger than 100 mm2 that should be primarily treated endoscopicly. .
| Reference Key |
slobodan2008vojnosanitetskithe
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Radulović Slobodan;Vuksanović Aleksandar;Milenković-Petronić Dragica;Vavić Božo |
| Journal | applied nursing research : anr |
| Year | 2008 |
| DOI |
10.2298/VSP0808619R
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.