FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2168961371> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2168961371 endingPage "636" @default.
• W2168961371 startingPage "636" @default.
• W2168961371 abstract "Much has changed since the introduction of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL); however, in many ways the principles remain constant. This manuscript by Jagtap et al. 1 is a large series of patients over 25 years and encapsulates the changes in ESWL over that time. This paper has all the limitations inherent in a retrospective review but within this offers interesting data. In particular the use of two different machines and refinements in technique are eloquently described. This shows an improvement due to both the change in technology but also in the importance of modifications of technique. The particular factors improving stone-free rate (SFR) were; better localisation with ultrasonography and X-ray, better coupling and use of coupling gel, change in selection criteria for both the patient and stone, ramping up the power and a staff training programme. This emphasis on technique is especially pertinent in healthcare systems where mobile lithotripters are still in use. These are renowned to have lower SFRs than static machines, which may be due to the technical delivery of treatment as much as the efficacy of the lithotripter. What is the future for ESWL? The paper reflects the perception globally that whilst the incidence of urolithiasis is increasing, the use of ESWL is not increasing at the same rate, particularly for ureteric stones, and they cite the potential factors for this. This has also been noted in the UK and our own recent review of Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data even suggest the rate of ESWL has plateaued for both ureteric (3000/year) and renal (19 500/year) stones in the last 3 years 2, 3. There has been discussion within the UK about centralising endourology services using the same model as for cancer, with provision of static lithotripters within those centres. This would potentially have the advantage of creating high-volume centres with quality being easier to standardise and monitor; however, this would have to be balanced against patients probably having to travel further to access ESWL. The use of Hounsfield units remains a topic of debate with conflicting data and limited clinical application 4, 5. Optimising targeting to minimise tissue damage with maximal stone fragmentation remains a challenge and modifications to lithotripters with dual-imaging modalities, dual heads, alterations in shockwave delivery rate, control of respiratory effort and novel feedback devices have had limited success. Increasing levels of obesity within developed countries are a factor in the utilisation of ESWL, as there is a limit on focal distance. All of these factors along with the continued improvement in the optics, miniaturisation of ureteroscopes and advent of holmium laser have contributed to a surge in the use of ureteroscopy, despite publications and guidelines showing similar success rates 6. None declared." @default.
• W2168961371 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2168961371 creator A5045977938 @default.
• W2168961371 date "2014-10-22" @default.
• W2168961371 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
• W2168961371 title "Evolution of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL)" @default.
• W2168961371 cites W1508700608 @default.
• W2168961371 cites W1896232313 @default.
• W2168961371 cites W2064291260 @default.
• W2168961371 cites W2162534405 @default.
• W2168961371 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12885" @default.
• W2168961371 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25339072" @default.
• W2168961371 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
• W2168961371 type Work @default.
• W2168961371 sameAs 2168961371 @default.
• W2168961371 citedByCount "6" @default.
• W2168961371 countsByYear W21689613712015 @default.
• W2168961371 countsByYear W21689613712016 @default.
• W2168961371 countsByYear W21689613712017 @default.
• W2168961371 countsByYear W21689613712019 @default.
• W2168961371 countsByYear W21689613712022 @default.
• W2168961371 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2168961371 hasAuthorship W2168961371A5045977938 @default.
• W2168961371 hasBestOaLocation W21689613711 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C2777950166 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C2779915274 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C2909722292 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C529618451 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C141071460 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C2777950166 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C2779915274 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C2909722292 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C529618451 @default.
• W2168961371 hasConceptScore W2168961371C71924100 @default.
• W2168961371 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2168961371 hasLocation W21689613711 @default.
• W2168961371 hasLocation W21689613712 @default.
• W2168961371 hasOpenAccess W2168961371 @default.
• W2168961371 hasPrimaryLocation W21689613711 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2033022539 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2079257938 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2102836407 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2147418034 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2417763411 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W2918657572 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W4232288594 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W4280514958 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W428520184 @default.
• W2168961371 hasRelatedWork W4290137173 @default.
• W2168961371 hasVolume "114" @default.
• W2168961371 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2168961371 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2168961371 magId "2168961371" @default.
• W2168961371 workType "article" @default.