Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of ureteral stents for the treatment of ureteral stones.Databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were selected for systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with or without stenting during URL and ESWL. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 software.We identified 22 RCTs comparing stenting and non-stenting. The stented group was associated with longer operation time (WMD: 4.93; 95% CI: 2.07 to 7.84; p < 0.001), lower stone-free rate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.01). In terms of complications, the incidence of hematuria (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.86 to 7.29; p < 0.001), irritative urinary symptoms (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.19 to 9.10; p < 0.001), urinary infection (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.19; p < 0.001), and dysuria (OR: 3.90; 95% CI: 2.51 to 6.07; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the stented group. No significant differences in visual analogue score (VAS), stricture formation, fever, or hospital stay were found between stenting and non-stenting groups. The risk of unplanned readmissions (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.97; p = 0.04) was higher in the non-stented group.Our analysis showed that stenting failed to improve the stone-free rate, and instead, it resulted in additional complications. However, ureteral stents are valuable in preventing unplanned re-hospitalization. Additional randomized controlled trials are still required to corroborate our findings.
<h4>Background and aim</h4>Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of ureteral stents for the treatment of ureteral stones.<h4>Methods</h4>Databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were selected for systematic review of randomized controll ...[more]
Project description:Silodosin, a recently introduced selective ?-blocker, has a much higher selectivity for the ?-1A receptor. The efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) are controversial. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of silodosin compared to tamsulosin for treating ureteral stones <10 mm in diameter. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases from their inception to May 2018. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies, which investigated stone expulsion rates using silodosin compared to tamsulosin. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model. Sixteen studies with 1824 patients were eligible for inclusion. Silodosin achieved significantly higher expulsion rates than tamsulosin (pooled risk difference (RD): 0.13, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.18, GRADE: high). A subgroup analyses showed that silodosin has a significantly higher expulsion rate on stone sizes of 5-10 mm than tamsulosin (pooled RD: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.22, I2 = 0%). The superior effect was not observed on stone sizes <5 mm. A multivariate regression showed that the RD was negatively associated with the control expulsion rate after adjusting for age and gender (coefficient -0.658, p = 0.01). A sensitivity analysis showed that our findings were robust. Patients receiving silodosin also probably had a significantly shorter expulsion time (pooled mean difference (MD): -2.55 days, 95% CI: -4.06 to -1.04, I2 = 85%, GRADE: moderate) and may have fewer pain episodes (pooled MD: -0.3, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.09, GRADE: low) but a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation by 5% compared to those receiving tamsulosin. In conclusion, compared to tamsulosin, silodosin provided significantly better stone passage for patients with ureteral stones (particularly for sizes of 5~10 mm), shorter expulsion times, and fewer pain episodes but caused a higher incidence of retrograde ejaculation.
Project description:ObjectTo compare the safety and efficacy of rigid ureteroscopic lithotripsy (rigid URSL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating large proximal ureteral stones.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases was performed to find out relevant studies. After literature screening according to the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, data of eligible studies was extracted and then a meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsFive randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one prospective and four retrospective cohort studies involving 837 patients were included. Patients underwent rigid URSL were associated with shorter operation time (WMD, -23.66min; 95%CI, -45.00 to -2.32; p = 0.03), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -2.76d; 95%CI, -3.51 to -2.02; p< 0.00001), lower 3rd-day (RR, 0.73; 95%CI, 0.66 to 0.82; p < 0.00001) and 1st-month (RR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.77 to 0.87; p < 0.00001) stone-free rate, higher risk of conversion to other surgical procedures (RR, 4.28; 95%CI, 1.93 to 9.46; p = 0.0003), higher incidence of migration (RR, 28.49; 95%CI, 9.12 to 89.00; p < 0.00001) and ureteral perforation (RR, 6.06; 95%CI, 1.80 to 20.44; p = 0.004), lower risk of fever (RR, 0.64; 95%CI, 0.42 to 0.97; p = 0.04), transfusion (RR, 0.19; 95%CI, 0.04 to 0.85; p = 0.03) and hematuria (RR, 0.38; 95%CI, 0.25 to 0.57; p < 0.0001). No significant difference was observed in terms of incidence of embolization, pain and ureterostenosis. When cohort studies or studies in which flexible ureteroscopy was used as an intraoperative auxiliary procedure were excluded, we both found that most of the results kept stable.ConclusionsBoth PCNL and rigid URSL are safe for patients with large proximal ureteral stones while PCNL is more effective in stone clearance.
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate predictive factors for retrograde ureteral stent failure in patients with non-urological malignant ureteral obstruction.Materials and methodsBetween 2005 and 2014, medical records of 284 malignant ureteral obstruction patients with 712 retrograde ureteral stent trials including 63 (22.2%) having bilateral malignant ureteral obstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Retrograde ureteral stent failure was defined as the inability to place ureteral stents by cystoscopy, recurrent stent obstruction within one month, or non-relief of azotemia within one week from the prior retrograde ureteral stent. The clinicopathological parameters and first retrograde pyelographic findings were analyzed to investigate the predictive factors for retrograde ureteral stent failure and conversion to percutaneous nephrostomy in multivariate analysis with a statistical significance of p < 0.05.ResultsRetrograde ureteral stent failure was detected in 14.1% of patients. The mean number of retrograde ureteral stent placements and indwelling duration of the ureteral stents were 2.5 ± 2.6 times and 8.6 ± 4.0 months, respectively. Multivariate analyses identified several specific RGP findings as significant predictive factors for retrograde ureteral stent failure (p < 0.05). The significant retrograde pyelographic findings included grade 4 hydronephrosis (hazard ratio 4.10, 95% confidence interval 1.39-12.09), irreversible ureteral kinking (hazard ratio 2.72, confidence interval 1.03-7.18), presence of bladder invasion (hazard ratio 4.78, confidence interval 1.81-12.63), and multiple lesions of ureteral stricture (hazard ratio 3.46, confidence interval 1.35-8.83) (p < 0.05).ConclusionRetrograde pyelography might prevent unnecessary and ineffective retrograde ureteral stent trials in patients with advanced non-urological malignant ureteral obstruction.
Project description:Although some trials assessed the efficacy and safety of the ?-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), the role of the ?-blocker in facilitating upper urinary calculi expulsion after ESWL remain controversial.To determine the efficacy and safety of the ?-blocker in facilitating renal and ureteral stones expulsion after ESWL.A 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.The meta-analysis included 23 RCTs, ?-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 ?-blocker group was associated with a higher incidence.Treatment with ?-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 ?-blocker were light and few.
Project description:BackgroundAlfuzosin has been widely used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis, and is claimed to be a selective agent for the lower urinary tract with low incidence of adverse side-effects and hypotensive changes. Recently, several randomized controlled trials have reported using Alfuzosin as an expulsive therapy of ureteral stones. Tamsulosin, another alpha blocker, has also been used as an agent for the expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. It is unclear whether alfuzosin has similar efficacy as Tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and analysis of literatures comparing Alfuzosin with Tamsulosin or standard conservative therapy for the treatment of ureteral stones less than 10 mm in diameter.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed in December 2014 using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify relevant studies. All randomized and controlled trials were included. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing Alfuzosin with control therapy on the management of distal ureteral stones.ResultsAlfuzosin provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than the control treatments (RR: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-2.55; p<0.001), and a shorter stone expulsion time (Weighted mean difference [WMD]: -4.20 d, 95%CI, -6.19 to -2.21; p<0.001), but it has a higher complication rate (RR: 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30-3.15; p<0.01). When Alfuzosin was compared to Tamsulosin, there was no significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (RR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.02; p = 0.09) as well as the stone expulsion time (WMD: 0.52 d, 95%CI, -1.61 to 2.64; p = 0.63). The adverse effects of Alfuzosin were similar to those of Tamsulosin (RR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.61-1.26; p = 0.47).ConclusionsAlfuzosin is a safe and effective agent for the expulsive therapy of ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm in size. It is more effective than therapeutic regiment without alpha blocker. It is equivalent to Tamsulosin in its effectiveness and safety profile. Adverse effects should always be kept in mind when use this class of drugs.
Project description:To describe stone-free rates and complications of ureteroscopic treatment for impacted compared with non-impacted ureteral stones and evaluate predictive variables for impaction.The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society prospectively collected 1 consecutive year of data from 114 centers worldwide. Patients eligible for inclusion were patients treated with ureteroscopy for ureteral stones. Patient characteristics, treatment details, and outcomes were compared with regard to stone impaction. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to explore predictive variables for ureteral stone impaction and to analyse the effect of impaction on outcomes.Of the 8543 treated patients, 2650 (31%) had impacted and 5893 (69%) non-impacted stones. The stone-free rate was 87.1% for impacted stones, which is lower compared with 92.7% for non-impacted stones (p?<?0.001). Intra-operative complication rates were higher for impacted stones (7.9 versus 3.0%, p?<?0.001). Significantly higher ureteral perforation- and avulsion rates were reported in the impacted stone group compared with the non-impacted stone group. No association between stone impaction and post-operative complications could be shown. Female gender, ASA-score?>1, prior stone treatment, positive pre-operative urine culture, and larger stones showed to be predictive variables for stone impaction.Ureteroscopic treatment for impacted stones is associated with lower stone-free rates and higher intra-operative complication rates compared with treatment for non-impacted stones. The predictive variables for the presence of stone impaction may contribute to the identification of stone impaction during the diagnostic process. Moreover, identification of stone impaction may aid the selection of the optimal treatment modality.
Project description:BackgroundUrinary stones are common medical disorders and the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones (IPUS) is still a challenge for urologists. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MI-PCNL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) in the treatment of IPUS via a meta-analysis.MethodsWe collected studies using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from 1978 to November 2016 and analyzed them using Stata 12.0 and RevMan 5.3. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference (SMD) were calculated for binary and continuous variables respectively, accompanied with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All study procedures followed the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsFive prospective studies were included in our meta-analysis, with 242 MI-PCNL and 256 URL cases. MI-PCNL was associated with a longer postoperative hospital stay than URL (SMD, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.27 to 5.55). However, no significant difference was observed in operative time (SMD, -0.38; 95% CI, -3.15 to 2.38). In addition, MI-PCNL had higher initial (OR, 11.12; 95% CI, 5.56 to 22.24) and overall stone-free rates (OR, 8.70; 95% CI, 3.23 to 23.45) than URL, along with lower possibilities of surgical conversion (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.49) and postoperative shock wave lithotripsy (OR, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.18). Regarding complications, no significant differences were observed between MI-PCNL and URL (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.10), except for hematuria (OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.45 to 15.94).ConclusionsMI-PCNL is optimal and should be considered as the preferred treatment method for IPUS, as it has better efficacy and a safety profile similar to that of URL. However, further high quality studies with larger sample size are required in future.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature. METHODS:A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Summarized mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the differences in outcomes between Microperc and RIRS. RESULTS:A total of nine studies (7 in adult patients and 2 in pediatric patients) containing 842 patients (381 Microperc cases and 461 RIRS cases) with renal stones were included in this analysis. Among the adult patients, Microperc was associated with higher stone-free rate(SFR)(OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.48), significantly longer hospital stays (MD: 0.66 day; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.15), longer fluoroscopy time (MD: 78.12 s; 95% CI, 66.08 to 90.15), and larger decreases in hemoglobin (MD: 0.59 g/dl; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02) than was RIRS. No significant differences were observed with respect to operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate or auxiliary procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Our results demonstrated that Microperc might be more effective in adult patients than RIRS will due to its higher SFR. However, longer hospital stays, longer fluoroscopy time and a larger decrease in hemoglobin should be considered cautiously.
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare peri-operative any symptomatic stroke after carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS), based on the application or absence of a cerebral protection device.MethodsA systematic literature review using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central was done across an online data base from January 1995 to October 2016. Procedures which were performed due to carotid dissection or aneurysm, procedures using covered stents or conducted in an emergency, were excluded. The primary endpoint was perioperative any symptomatic stroke within 30 days after the procedure. A fixed effect model was used in cases of heterogeneity less than 50%.ResultsIn the 25 articles included in this study, the number of stroke events was 326 (2.0%) in protected CAS and 142 (3.4%) in unprotected CAS. The use of cerebral protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS (odds ratio [OR] 0.633, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.479-0.837, p=0.001). In the publication bias analysis, Egger's regression test disclosed that the intercept was -0.317 (95% CI -1.015-0.382, p=0.358). Regarding symptomatic patients (four studies, 539 CAS procedures), the number of stroke was six (1.7%) in protected CAS and 11 (5.7%) in unprotected CAS. The protective effect against stroke events by cerebral protection device did not have a statistical significance (OR 0.455, 95% CI 0.151-1.366, p=0.160).ConclusionThe use of protection device significantly decreased stroke after CAS. However, its efficacy was not demonstrated in symptomatic patients. Routine use of protection device during CAS should be critically assessed before mandatory use.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery (OS) for surgical treatment of patients with staghorn stones based on published literatures. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of Pubmed, Embase, CNKI and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of PCNL and OS for treating patients with staghorn stones up to Jan 2018. RESULTS:There was no significant difference in final-SFR between PCNL and OS (odds ratio[OR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 2.15; p = 0.61), while PCNL provided a significantly lower immediate-SFR compared with OS (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.51; P < 0.0001). PCNL provided significantly lower overall complication rate, shorter operative times, hospitalization times, less blood loss and blood transfusion compared with OS (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.84; P = 0.004), (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -59.01mins; 95% CI: -81.09, -36.93; p < 0.00001), (WMD: -5.77days; 95% CI: -7.80, -3.74; p < 0.00001), (WMD: -138.29ml; 95% CI: -244.98, -31.6; p = 0.01) and (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.68; P = 0.00002), respectively. No significant differences were found in minor complications (Clavien I-II) (OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.47, 1.09; p = 0.12) and major complications (Clavien III-V) (OR: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.08; P = 0.08). In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences for overall complications and operative times between mini-PCNL and OS. In sensitivity analysis, there was no significant difference for overall complications between PCNL and OS. CONCLUSION:Our analysis suggested that standard PCNL turns out to be a safe and feasible alternative for patients with staghorn stones compared to OS or mini-PCNL. Because of the inherent limitations of the included studies, further large sample, prospective, multi-centric and randomized control trials should be undertaken to confirm our findings.
