ArticleBMC urology2026
Emergency management of ureteral stones with SWL: is there any advantage over elective approach?
Article in BMC urology, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal timing of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for ureteral stones remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of emergency versus elective ESWL in patients presenting with ureteral calculi.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 66 patients who underwent ESWL at our institution between June 2023 and December 2024 were included. Patients were categorized into emergency (n = 32) and elective (n = 34) ESWL groups. All procedures were performed using a Modulith SLK Inline lithotripter (Storz Medical, Switzerland) with up to 3,000 shocks per session at 60-90 shocks per minute under NSAID analgesia. Demographic characteristics, stone-related parameters (size, volume, density), procedural variables (session number, duration), stone-free (SF) rates, post-procedural emergency visits, and infectious complications were analyzed. Stone-free status was assessed 7 days after the final ESWL session.
resultsThere were no significant differences between the emergency and elective groups regarding age, sex, body mass index (BMI), or comorbidities. Stones in the emergency ESWL group were significantly larger (8.2 ± 2.65 mm vs. 7.7 ± 1.74 mm; p = 0.023) while stone volume was similar. The number of ESWL sessions and total procedure duration did not differ significantly. Stone-free rates were comparable between groups (65.6% vs. 67.6%; p = 0.862). Post-treatment emergency department visits (31.3% vs. 20.6%; p = 0.322) and infectious complications (15.6% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.199) did not differ significantly.
conclusionEmergency ESWL was associated with stone-free rates comparable to elective ESWL in carefully selected patients, despite a larger mean stone size in the emergency ESWL group. However, the numerically higher infectious complication rate in the emergency group warrants cautious interpretation. These findings suggest that emergency ESWL may represent a feasible early treatment option for selected patients with symptomatic ureteral stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42260532What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.