Efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: a meta-analysis

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
📄 Open PDF View at publisher

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical efficiency and safety of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eESWL) and delayed extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (dESWL) in the treatment of ureteral stones. Methods Cochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched from inception to September 30, 2022, and all comparative studies involving eESWL and dESWL for ureteral calculi were included. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results A total of 9 articles involving 976 patients diagnosed with ureteral stones were included. The results showed that the stone-free rate (SFR) after four weeks was significantly higher in the eESWL group than in the dESWL group [odds ratio (OR) = 2.19, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62–2.96, P < 0.01]. In subgroup analysis of different stone locations, proximal ureteral calculi [OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.66–3.38, P < 0.01] and mid-to-distal ureteral calculi [OR = 2.47, 95% CI: 1.23–4.97, P < 0.05] all showed a higher SFR in the eESWL group. eESWL significantly shortened the stone-free time(SFT) [mean difference (MD) = -5.75, 95% CI: -9.33 to -2.17, P < 0.01]. In addition, eESWL significantly reduced auxiliary procedures [OR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.32–0.64, P  0.05]. Conclusion eESWL can significantly improve SFR, shorten SFT, and reduce auxiliary procedures.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-19T01:45:01.086888+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-26T02:00:01.498150+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0