Dataset Information

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The debate still rages on for the usefulness of ureteral access sheath (UAS). Therefore, a meta-analysis to discuss the effects of applying UAS during ureteroscopy was performed. The protocol for the review is available on PROSPERO (CRD42017052327). A literature search was conducted up to November, 2017 using the Web of science, PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The quality of articles was assessed by the Jadad scale and Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were used to evaluate publication bias. Effect sizes were calculated by pooled odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the origin of heterogeneity. Eight trials with a total of 3099 patients and 3127 procedures were identified. Results showed no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52-1.33, P = 0.45), intraoperative complications (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-7.69, P = 0.88), operative time (MD = 4.09, 95% CI -15.08-23.26, P = 0.68) and hospitalization duration (MD = -0.13, 95% CI -0.32-0.06, P = 0.18). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher in UAS group (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00, P = 0.02). Evidence from meta-analysis indicated that the use of UAS during ureteroscopy did not manifest advantages. However, given the intrinsic restrictions of the quality of selected articles, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to update the findings of this analysis.

SUBMITTER: Huang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5831629 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huang Jian J Zhao Zhijian Z AlSmadi Jad Khaled JK Liang Xiongfa X Zhong Fangling F Zeng Tao T Wu Weizhou W Deng Tuo T Lai Yongchang Y Liu Luhao L Zeng Guohua G Wu Wenqi W

PloS one 20180228 2

The debate still rages on for the usefulness of ureteral access sheath (UAS). Therefore, a meta-analysis to discuss the effects of applying UAS during ureteroscopy was performed. The protocol for the review is available on PROSPERO (CRD42017052327). A literature search was conducted up to November, 2017 using the Web of science, PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The quality of articles was assessed by the Jadad scale and Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method ...[more]

PMID: 29489912

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the potential beneficial and adverse effects of routine ureteric stent placement after ureteroscopy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesCochrane controlled trials register (2006 issue 2), Embase, and Medline (1966 to 31 March 2006), without language restrictions. Review methods We included all randomised controlled trials that reported various outcomes with or without stenting after ureteroscopy. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses used both fixed and random effects models with dichotomous data reported as relative risk and continuous data as a weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials (reporting 831 participants) were identified. The incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms was significantly higher in participants who had a stent inserted (relative risk 2.25, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 4.43, for dysuria; 2.00, 1.11 to 3.62, for frequency or urgency) after ureteroscopy. There was no significant difference in postoperative requirement for analgesia, urinary tract infections, stone free rate, and ureteric strictures in the two groups. Because of marked heterogeneity, formal pooling of data was not possible for some outcomes such as flank pain. A pooled analysis showed a reduced likelihood of unplanned medical visits or admission to hospital in the group with stents (0.53, 0.17 to 1.60), although this difference was not significant. None of the trials reported on health related quality of life. Cost reported in three randomised controlled trials favoured the group without stents. The overall quality of trials was poor and reporting of outcomes inconsistent.ConclusionsPatients with stents after ureteroscopy have significantly higher morbidity in the form of irritative lower urinary symptoms with no influence on stone free rate, rate of urinary tract infection, requirement for analgesia, or long term ureteric stricture formation. Because of the marked heterogeneity and poor quality of reporting of the included trials, the place of stenting in the management of patients after uncomplicated ureteroscopy remains unclear.

Project description:IntroductionWe aimed to assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on publication language or status up to February 1, 2019. We only included randomized trials. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE.ResultsWe included 23 studies with 2656 randomized patients. Primary outcomes: It is uncertain whether stenting reduces the number of unplanned return visits (very low certainty of evidence [CoE]). Pain on the day of surgery is probably similar (mean difference [MD] 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13-0.78; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1-3 may show little to no difference (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.25; 95% CI -0.32-0.82; low CoE). It is uncertain whether stented patients experience more pain on postoperative days 4-30 (very low CoE). Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.39-3.33; low CoE).Secondary outcomesWe are uncertain whether stenting reduces the need for narcotics and reduces ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days (very low CoE). Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.32-1.55; low CoE). This review was limited to patients in whom ureteroscopy was deemed 'uncomplicated.' In addition, time intervals for the grouping for the reported degree of pain were established post-hoc. The CoE for most outcomes was rated as low or very low for methodological reasons.ConclusionsFindings of this review illustrate the tradeoffs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease.

Project description:BackgroundRetrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is the main treatments for upper urinary tract stones. The Ureteral Access Sheath (UAS) serves as a supplementary tool, facilitating direct kidney access during RIRS. High quality of evidence comparing tip bendable suction ureteral access sheath (S-UAS) with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal and ureteral stones is lacking. The purpose of the study is to compare the efficacy and safety of S-UAS with traditional UAS in RIRS for the treatment of renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm.MethodsAn international, multicenter, and superiority randomized controlled trial included 320 intention-to-treat patients across 8 medical centers in China, the Philippines, Malaysia and Turkey from August 2023 to February 2024. The inclusion criteria were patients ≥18 years old with renal or ureteral stones ≤30 mm. RIRS was performed using either S-UAS or traditional UAS. The primary outcome was the immediately stone-free rate (SFR). Secondary outcomes included SFR 3 months after operation, operating time, hospital stay, auxiliary procedures, complications (using the Clavien-Dindo grading system), and improvement in the Quality of Life (QoL) score. Differences between proportions [risk difference (RD)]/means [mean difference (MD)] and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05952635.FindingsThe S-UAS group demonstrated a significantly higher immediately SFR (81.3% versus 49.4%; RD 31.9%; 95% CI 22.5%-41.7%; p = 0.004) compared to the traditional UAS group, as determined by the one-side superiority test. Additionally, the S-UAS group exhibited a higher SFR at 3 months post-operation (87.5% versus 70.0%; RD 17.5%; 95% CI 8.7%-26.3%; p < 0.001), lower postoperative fever rate (RD -11.9%; 95% CI -18.7% to -4.9%; p < 0.001), reduced use of stone baskets (RD -70.6%; 95% CI -77.8% to -63.5%; p < 0.001), and better QoL improvement (MD 7.25; 95% CI 2.21-12.29; p = 0.005). No statistically significant differences were observed in operation time, hospital stay, or the need for second-stage RIRS.InterpretationIn RIRS for upper urinary tract stones ≤30 mm, S-UAS exhibited superior performance compared to traditional UAS, demonstrating higher SFR, reduced postoperative fever rate, and improved QoL outcomes. S-UAS emerges as a prudent and advantageous alternative to traditional UAS for RIRS.FundingNational Natural Science Foundation of China and Guangdong Province, and Zhejiang Medicine and Health Program.

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.

Dataset Information

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets