A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparing the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones in children: A retrospective study. | LitMetric

Objectives: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy methods are commonly used in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. There are no adequate studies showing which method is more effective in children. In our study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of two treatment methods, commonly used for proximal ureteral stones in children.

Methods: A total of 78 patients who underwent ureteroscopic lithotripsy (n = 38) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (n = 40) due to stones located in the proximal ureter between 2010 and 2021 were included in the study. Demographic data, clinical characteristics, and treatment outcomes were retrospectively analyzed. Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Chi-square, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results: There was no statistical difference between the demographic characteristics of the groups, except for the mean age values (p = 0.008). A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy group in terms of stone-free rates after the first intervention, complication rates requiring intervention, re-intervention rates, and the average number of anesthesia sessions per patient until stone-free status (p = 0.043, p = 0.009, p = 0.017, and p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study suggest that extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is the primary treatment option for single, non-complicated proximal ureteral stones.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/iju.15245DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

extracorporeal shock
16
shock wave
16
wave lithotripsy
16
ureteroscopic lithotripsy
12
proximal ureteral
12
ureteral stones
12
treatment proximal
8
methods commonly
8
lithotripsy
7
comparing efficacy
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!