<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Bucci, Stefano</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Umari, Paolo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rizzo, Michele</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pavan, Nicola</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Liguori, Giovanni</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Barbone, Fabio</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Trombetta, Carlo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy as opposed to delayed shockwave lithotripsy for the treatment of acute renal colic due to obstructive ureteral stone: a prospective randomized trial.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minerva Urol Nefrol</style></secondary-title><alt-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Minerva Urol Nefrol</style></alt-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Calculi</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Emergency Medical Services</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Female</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Length of Stay</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lithotripsy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Male</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Middle Aged</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prospective Studies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Renal Colic</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Time-to-Treatment</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tomography, X-Ray Computed</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ureteral Obstruction</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2018 Oct</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">70</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">526-533</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (eSWL) as first-line treatment in patients with acute colic due to obstructive ureteral stone.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;Seventy-four patients were randomized to emergency SWL within 12 hours (eSWL group) and deferred SWL later than 3 days (dSWL group). Follow-up included ultrasound, KUB (kidney-ureter-bladder) radiography and CT (computed tomography) scan at 24 hours, 7 days, 1 and 3 months from the treatment. When necessary, repeated SWL (re-SWL) or ureteroscopy (auxiliary-URS) was performed. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared and stone free rates (SFR) and efficiency quotients (EQ) were evaluated. Analyses were performed using SAS software.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;Complete data of 70 patients were collected. 36 underwent eSWL and 34 dSWL. The mean patient age was 48.7. Mean stone size was 9.8 mm (CI 95%: 8.9-10.8). 25 (35.7%) were proximal and 45 (64.3%) distal. Mean SWL energy was 19.2 kV (CI 95%: 18.5-19.9) and mean number of shocks was 2657 (CI 95%: 2513-2802). eSWL patients needs less auxiliary-URS than dSWL patients (13.9% vs. 44.1%, P=0.039) and less re-SWL sessions (8.3% vs. 32.4%, P=0.093). SFR at 24 hours was 52.8% and 11.8% (P&lt;0.001) and the EQ at 3 months was 79.1% and 57.5% in the eSWL and dSWL group respectively. Patients from the dSWL group spent more time in the hospital (2.21 vs. 1.36 days, P=0.046) and complication rates between the two groups were similar.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSIONS: &lt;/b&gt;eSWL is a safe procedure and delivers high SFR even within 24 hours especially for &lt;10 mm stones. It is able to reduce the number of auxiliary procedures and hospitalization.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></issue><custom1><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29761687?dopt=Abstract</style></custom1></record></records></xml>