A network meta-analysis on the beneficial effect of medical expulsive therapy after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yang TX
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5663967 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAlthough some trials assessed the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the role of the α-blocker in facilitating upper urinary calculi expulsion after ESWL remain controversial.AimsTo determine the efficacy and safety of the α-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after ESWL.MethodsA literature search was carried out using the PubMed database, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database to identify relevant studies. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Pooled effect estimates were obtained using a fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 23 RCTs, α-blocker significantly enhanced expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi after ESWL (P<0.00001; RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.12-1.31), significantly promoted steinstrasse expulsion (P=0.03; RR 1.25; 95% CI 1.03-1.53), significantly shortened the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi (P=0.0001; MD -2.12; 95% CI -3.20--1.04), significantly reduced the patient's pain VAS score (P=0.001; RR -1.0; 95% CI -1.61--0.39). Compared with the control group, dizziness (P=0.002; RR 5.48; 95% CI 1.91-15.77), anejaculation (P=0.02; RR 12.17; 95% CI 1.61-91.99) and headache (P=0.04; RR 4.03; 95% CI 1.04-15.72) in the α-blocker group was associated with a higher incidence.ConclusionsTreatment with α-blocker after ESWL appears to be effective in enhancing expulsion rate of upper urinary tract calculi, shortening the discharge time of upper urinary tract calculi, reducing the patient's pain. The side effects of α-blocker were light and few.
| S-EPMC4393103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a non-invasive procedure that allows urinary stones to be fragmented using acoustic shock waves. The impact of the shock waves causes transient stinging pain at the entry site as well as deep visceral discomfort, requiring analgesia during the procedure. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of Entonox and pethidine for pain relief during outpatient ESWL. We randomized 150 outpatients undergoing elective ESWL into three groups of 50 patients, each group receiving inhalational Entonox, intravenous pethidine, or inhalational compressed air during ESWL. Quantitative evaluation of pain was performed according to a visual analogue scale (VAS), before and after the intervention. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired t tests were used to compare VAS scores in the three groups, before and after the intervention. Entonox and pethidine decreased the pain score significantly, while compressed air did not. There was no significant difference between pain relief by Entonox and pethidine. This study demonstrates for the first time that inhalational Entonox is an effective analgesic regimen for ESWL. Entonox can be regarded as an appropriate alternative to analgesics like opioids in relieving pain during ESWL.
| S-EPMC2082064 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsCochrane Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched from January 1, 1992 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. Funnel plot was used to evaluated publication bias.ResultsA 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 [relative risk (RR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.32, P < 0.01]. In subgroup analysis of different stone locations, proximal ureteral calculi [RR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14-1.38, P < 0.01] and mid-to-distal ureteral calculi [RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.34, 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 [RR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.40-0.70, P < 0.01]. No significant difference in complications was found between the two groups [RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.69-1.16, P > 0.05].ConclusioneESWL can significantly improve SFR, shorten SFT, and reduce auxiliary procedures.
| S-EPMC10074806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is considered one of the best choices for the treatment of various kinds of urinary tract calculi, although it might cause acute kidney injury.ObjectiveTo measure the urinary long non-coding RNA-messenger RNA (LncRNA-mRNA) panel before and after ESWL to evaluate post-ESWL renal injury in a reliable and non-invasive method.Patients and methodsThe study included 60 patients with renal stones treated with ESWL and 30 healthy volunteers. Voided urine samples were obtained before, 2 h, and 1 day after ESWL. We measured the urinary level of LncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) by real-time qPCR and compared the results with serum creatinine and eGFR.ResultsLncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) levels were higher in patients with renal stones when compared with healthy volunteers. They showed a statistically significant increase in the level of LncRNA-mRNA panel in baseline and after ESWL treatment.ConclusionLncRNA (SBF2-AS1, FENDRR-19) and mRNA (GBP1, NLRP3) levels were significantly elevated following ESWL treatment, highlighting the usefulness of urinary biomarkers in identifying patients at higher risk of developing renal injury after ESWL treatment.
| S-EPMC9166822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Hypertrophic scars cause aesthetic concerns and negatively affect the quality of life. A gold standard treatment for hypertrophic scars has not been established due to various responses of modalities. Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a noninvasive and affects scar remodeling by fibroblast regulation. This study investigated the effectiveness of ESWT for hypertrophic scars. Methods Twenty-nine patients were enrolled. All patients underwent ESWT once a week for 6 consecutive weeks. Their scars were assessed using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), erythema index, melanin index, and scar pliability before treatment and again 4 weeks after treatment completion. Results Thirty-four hypertrophic scars in this study had persisted for between 6 months and 30 years. Most scars developed after surgical incision (55.88%). The chest and upper extremities were the predominant areas of occurrence (35.29% each). Most of the POSAS subscales and total scores were significantly improved 4 weeks after treatment ( p < 0.05). Furthermore, the pain, itching, and pigmentation subscale were improved. The pliability, melanin index, and erythema index were also improved, but without significance. The patients were satisfied with the results and symptoms alleviation, although subjective score changes were insignificant. No serious adverse events were found. The patients reported pruritus in 62.5% and good pain tolerance in 37.5%. Subgroup analyses found no differences in scar etiologies or properties at different parts of the body. Conclusion The ESWT is a modality for hypertrophic scar treatment with promising results. Most of POSAS subscales were significantly improved.
| S-EPMC9340180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Pain is the most frequent and dominant symptom of chronic pancreatitis. Currently, these patients are treated using a step-up approach, including analgesics and lifestyle adjustments, endoscopic, and eventually surgical treatment. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is indicated after failure of the first step in patients with symptomatic intraductal stones larger than 5 mm in the head or body of the pancreas. To assess the complete ductal clearance rate and pain relief after ESWL in patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct stones, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Patients and methods A systematic literature search from January 2000 to December 2018 was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for studies on ductal clearance rate of ESWL in patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct stones. Results After screening 486 studies, 22 studies with 3868 patients with chronic pancreatitis undergoing ESWL for pancreatic duct stones were included. The pooled proportion of patients with complete ductal clearance was 69.8 % (95 % CI 63.8-75.5). The pooled proportion of complete absence of pain during follow-up was 64.2 % (95 % CI 57.5-70.6). Complete stone fragmentation was 86.3 % (95 % CI 76.0-94.0). Post-procedural pancreatitis and cholangitis occurred in 4.0 % (95 % CI 2.5-5.8) and 0.5 % (95 % CI 0.2-0.9), respectively. Conclusion Treatment with ESWL results in complete ductal clearance rate in a majority of patients, resulting in absence of pain during follow up in over half of patients with symptomatic chronic pancreatitis caused by obstructing pancreatic duct stones.
| S-EPMC7373664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported success rates for treatments of kidney stones with either extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) are conflicting. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESWL and URS for previously untreated renal calculi.MethodsAll patients treated with ESWL or URS at our tertiary care centre between 2003 and 2015 were retrospectively identified. Patients with previously untreated kidney stones and a stone diameter of 5-20?mm were included. Stone-free, freedom from reintervention and complication rates were recorded. Independent predictors of stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates were identified by multivariable logistic regression and a propensity score-matched analysis was performed.ResultsA total of 1282 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 999 (78%) underwent ESWL and 283 (22%) had URS. During post-operative follow-up, only treatment modality and stone size could independently predict stone-free and freedom from reintervention rates. After propensity score matching, ESWL showed significantly lower stone-free rates [ESWL (71%) versus URS (84%)] and fewer patients with freedom from reintervention [ESWL (55%) versus URS (79%)] than URS. Complications were scarce for both treatments and included Clavien Grade 3a in 0.8% versus 0% and Grade 3b in 0.5% versus 0.4% of ESWL and URS treated patients, respectively.ConclusionsTreatment success was mainly dependent on stone size and treatment modality. URS might be the better treatment option for previously untreated kidney stones 5-20?mm, with similar morbidity but higher stone-free rates and fewer reinterventions than ESWL.
| S-EPMC6007408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Low-energy extracorporeal shock wave therapy (SWT) has been shown to improve myocardial dysfunction, hind limb ischemia, erectile function, and to facilitate cell therapy and healing process. These therapeutic effects were mainly due to promoting angiogenesis. Since chronic kidney diseases are characterized by renal fibrosis and capillaries rarefaction, they may benefit from a proangiogenic treatment. The objective of our study was to determine whether SWT could ameliorate renal repair and favor angiogenesis in L-NAME-induced hypertensive nephropathy in rats. SWT was started when proteinuria exceeded 1 g/mmol of creatinine and 1 week after L-NAME removal. SWT consisted of implying 0.09 mJ/mm(2) (400 shots), 3 times per week. After 4 weeks of SWT, blood pressure, renal function and urinary protein excretion did not differ between treated (LN + SWT) and untreated rats (LN). Histological lesions including glomerulosclerosis and arteriolosclerosis scores, tubular dilatation and interstitial fibrosis were similar in both groups. In addition, peritubular capillaries and eNOS, VEGF, VEGF-R, SDF-1 gene expressions did not increase in SWT-treated compared to untreated animals. No procedural complications or adverse effects were observed in control (C + SWT) and hypertensive rats (LN + SWT). These results suggest that extracorporeal kidney shock wave therapy does not induce angiogenesis and does not improve renal function and structure, at least in the model of hypertensive nephropathy although the treatment is well tolerated.
| S-EPMC4908482 | biostudies-other
Project description:Extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) is a mature, conservative treatment modality for tendinopathy. Although many relevant studies have been conducted, systematic bibliometric studies are lacking. This study aimed to identify trends and hotspots in the treatment of tendinopathy using ESWT. A literature search was conducted on ESWT for tendinopathy using the Web of Science Core Collection with a search period of 2002 to 2022. Of 559 identified studies, 276 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using CiteSpace software. The results showed that from 2002 to 2022, the publication rate of literature on ESWT for tendinopathy was generally increasing. Research hotspots, such as tendinopathy and calcific rotator cuff deposits, began earlier but continued to receive scholarly attention. Research on animal models and molecular mechanisms has progressed slowly in this field. The combined or comparative effectiveness of injectable and supplement-based treatments with ESWT is a popular research topic. Pain management in patients with tendinopathy has received considerable attention. Simultaneously, more clinical indicators of energy levels and pulse parameters during ESWT are needed to provide more scientific and accurate treatment for patients.
| S-EPMC10713145 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal disease. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy had shown an effect on osteoarthritis in both some animal experiments and clinical studies, but there was no systematic review to confirm the value of shockwave therapy in the treatment of all types of osteoarthritis and compare it with other traditional therapies (especially traditional Chinese medicine). Method:PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, WANFANG database, and VIP database were searched up to December 10, 2019, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing shockwave therapy and other treatments for osteoarthritis. Visual analogue scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were extracted and analyzed by RevMan and STATA software as outcomes of pain reduction and functional improvement. Adverse reactions were recorded to evaluate the safety of shockwave therapy. Results:Shockwave therapy had significant improvement in both pain reduction and functional improvement compared with placebo, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, medication, and ultrasound (P < 0.05). In functional improvement, shockwave therapy showed statistical improvement compared with kinesiotherapy and moxibustion (P < 0.05) but not with acupotomy surgery (P = 0.24). A significant difference between shockwave therapy and platelet-rich plasma was observed in pain reduction (P < 0.05) but not in functional improvement (P = 0.89). Meanwhile, a statistical difference was found between shockwave therapy and fumigation in functional improvement (P < 0.05) but not in pain reduction (P = 0.26). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between shockwave therapy and manipulation in both pain reduction (P = 0.21) and functional improvement (P = 0.45). No serious adverse reaction occurred in all of studies. Conclusions:Extracorporeal shockwave therapy could be recommended in the treatment of osteoarthritis as a noninvasive therapy with safety and effectiveness, but the grade of recommendations needs to be discussed in a further study.
| S-EPMC7104126 | biostudies-literature