162 research outputs found
Pairwise meta-analysis of success rate in each SW-frequency range following SWL.
No full textPooled data that assessed overall success showed a significantly lower rate of overall success in the high-frequency SWL versus low-frequency SWL groups (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33–0.68; P<0.001), and in the high-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL groups (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.22–0.68; P<0.001). However, forest plots showed no significant difference in success rate between intermediate-frequency SWL versus low-frequency SWL.</p
Pairwise meta-analysis for complication rate in each shock wave frequency range following SWL.
No full textForest plots for complication rate demonstrated no significant difference between high-frequency SWL versus low-frequency SWL (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.92–2.18; P = 0.12), high-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.38–2.51; P = 0.97), or intermediate-frequency SWL versus low-frequency SW (OR 1.46; 95% CI 0.79–2.69; P = 0.22).</p
Pairwise meta-analysis of success rate in SWL and RIRS.
No full textResults show that the stone-free rate of SWL was lower than RIRS (OR 60.46; 95% CI 0.30–0.71; P<0.001).</p
Pairwise meta-analysis of success rate in PCNL and SWL.
No full textResults show that the stone-free rate of PCNL was superior to SWL (OR 7.71; 95% CI 4.08–14.57; P<0.001).</p
Network meta-analysis for success and complication rates according to SWL frequency and node-splitting analyses of inconsistency.
No full text(A) The success rates of low- (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5–3.6) and intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3–4.6) were higher than high-frequency SWL on the network analyses. (B) In terms of the complication rate, there were no differences across all SWL frequency groups. On node-splitting analysis, no comparisons demonstrated inconsistency between direct and indirect comparison in terms of success and complication rates. P-value: inconsistency p-values for each split comparison. Direct: direct comparison between two treatments. Indirect: indirect comparison between two treatments. Network: network meta-analysis between two treatments</p
Analisa Keandalan Struktur pada Container Crane SWL 40 Ton Menggunakan Metode Monte Carlo
No full textIn its operation, container crane are significantly affected by usage and environmental conditions. The structure of the container crane must be able and show the best performance in overcoming the loading and environmental conditions. This study aims to determine the reliability of the container crane structure of the container crane type quay crane with SWL 40 tons. The method used is perform a static analysis by calculating the value of von mises stress and deflection due to loading condition. The loads use variation, 60% SWL, 100% SWL, and 110% SWL. To calculate the reliability of the structure, the author uses the Monte Carlo method. With the help of CATIA V5R21 software to model and perform FEM analysis of container crane structures and the result compared with manual calculation. The error rate between software and normal calculation is 6,86 %. The critical point of stress occurs at boom. The results of the analysis of the reliability of the container crane structure using Monte Carlo show that the reliability value of the structure after 21 years is decreasing
A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size
No full textBackground and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria. Results: In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p 1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.ope
Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
No full textOBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the optimal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) frequency range for treating urinary stones, i.e., high-frequency (100-120 waves/minute), intermediate-frequency (80-90 waves/minute), and low-frequency (60-70 waves/minute) lithotripsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases for meta-analysis of SWL success and complication rates. Using pairwise and network meta-analyses, comparisons were made by qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Outcome variables are provided as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis using pairwise and network meta-analyses. On pairwise meta-analyses, comparable inter-study heterogeneity was observed for the success rate. On network meta-analyses, the success rates of low- (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-2.6) and intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.6) were higher than high-frequency SWL. Forest plots from the network meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the success rate between low-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51-1.7). There were no differences in complication rate across different SWL frequency ranges. By rank-probability testing, intermediate-frequency SWL was ranked highest for success rate, followed by low-frequency and high-frequency SWL. Low-frequency SWL was also ranked highest for low complication rate, with high- and intermediate-frequency SWL ranked lower.
CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate- and low-frequency SWL have better treatment outcomes than high-frequency SWL when considering both efficacy and complication.ope
Impact of Pretreatment Hydronephrosis on the Success Rate of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Patients with Ureteral Stone
No full textPURPOSE:
To evaluate predictors of the success rate for one session of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), focusing on the relationships between pretreatment hydronephrosis grade and one-session SWL success rates.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
The medical records of 1824 consecutive patients who underwent an initial session of SWL for treatment of urinary stones between 2005 and 2013 were reviewed. After exclusion, 700 patients with a single, 4-20 mm diameter radiopaque calculus were included in the study.
RESULTS:
The mean maximal stone length (MSL) and skin-to-stone distance were 9.2±3.9 and 110.8±18.9 mm, respectively. The average values for mean stone density (MSD) and stone heterogeneity index (SHI) were 707.0±272.1 and 244.9±110.1, respectively. One-session success rates were 68.4, 75.0, 75.1, 54.0, and 10.5% in patients with hydronephrosis grade 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Patients were classified into success or failure groups based on SWL outcome. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that MSL [odds ratio (OR) 0.888, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.841-0.934, p<0.001], MSD (OR 0.996, 95% CI: 0.995-0.997, p<0.001), SHI (OR 1.007, 95% CI: 1.005-1.010, p<0.001), and pretreatment hydronephrosis grade (OR 0.601, 95% CI: 0.368-0.988, p=0.043) were significantly associated with one-session success.
CONCLUSION:
Pretreatment grades 3 or 4 hydronephrosis were associated with failure of SWL in patients with a single ureteral stone. In the presence of severe hydronephrosis, especially hydronephrosis grade 4; physicians should proceed cautiously in choosing and offering SWL as the primary treatment for ureteral stone.ope
Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
No full textObjectivesTo perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the optimal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) frequency range for treating urinary stones, i.e., high-frequency (100-120 waves/minute), intermediate-frequency (80-90 waves/minute), and low-frequency (60-70 waves/minute) lithotripsy.Materials and methodsRelevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases for meta-analysis of SWL success and complication rates. Using pairwise and network meta-analyses, comparisons were made by qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Outcome variables are provided as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThirteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis using pairwise and network meta-analyses. On pairwise meta-analyses, comparable inter-study heterogeneity was observed for the success rate. On network meta-analyses, the success rates of low- (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5-2.6) and intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.6) were higher than high-frequency SWL. Forest plots from the network meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the success rate between low-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51-1.7). There were no differences in complication rate across different SWL frequency ranges. By rank-probability testing, intermediate-frequency SWL was ranked highest for success rate, followed by low-frequency and high-frequency SWL. Low-frequency SWL was also ranked highest for low complication rate, with high- and intermediate-frequency SWL ranked lower.ConclusionsIntermediate- and low-frequency SWL have better treatment outcomes than high-frequency SWL when considering both efficacy and complication
- …
