Dataset Information

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To determine whether previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy (URS).

Methods

An exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were conducted to find eligible studies before October 2020. Result variables consisting stone-free rate (SFR), operation time and postoperative modified Clavien grade I-IV complications were pooled utilizing RevMan 5.3.

Results

Seven studies with 2413 individuals were included. Pooled results revealed that the salvage URS after failed SWL was similar to URS performed primarily regarding SFR [odds ratio (OR) =0.84, P=0.15] and operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) =6.79, P=0.19]. Additionally, no statistically significant differences concerning fever (OR: 1.36; P=0.32), hematuria (OR: 0.81; P=0.75), urinary tract infection (OR: 1.57; P=0.28), renal colic (OR: 1.94; P=0.50), ureteral perforation (OR: 1.44; P=0.46), ureteral avulsion (OR: 1.21; P=0.83), stone migration (OR: 0.92; P=0.86) and sepsis (OR: 0.46; P=0.38) were observed between salvage URS and primary URS group.

Discussion

The success rates and complications of URS were not impacted by previous unsuccessful SWL. The salvage URS is equally effective and safe to primary URS.

SUBMITTER: Wang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8185663 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Wei W Peng Liao L Di Xingpeng X Gao Xiaoshuai X Wei Xin X

Translational andrology and urology 20210501 5

<h4>Background</h4>To determine whether previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy (URS).<h4>Methods</h4>An exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were conducted to find eligible studies before October 2020. Result variables consisting stone-free rate (SFR), operation time and postoperative modified Clavien grade I-IV complications were pooled utilizing RevMan 5.3.<h4>Results</h4>Seven studies with 2413 individuals w ...[more]

PMID: 34159093

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:ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis.ResultsSeventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): -1.96, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51-18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85-1.42, p < 0.00001).ConclusionFor 1-2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the outcomes of internal ureteral stents in comparison with ureteroscopy (URS) for pregnant women with urolithiasis.Data sourcesRelevant studies published from January 1980 to June 2022 were identified through systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.Methods of study selectionA total of 499 studies were initially identified. We included pregnant women in any stages of gestation who underwent double-J (D-J) stent insertion only or ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis; for a study to be included, the number of participants needed to exceed 10. This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO website (Reference: CRD42020195607).ResultsA total of 25 studies were identified with 131 cases undergoing serial stenting and 789 cases undergoing URS. The pooled operative success rate was 97% for D-J stent insertion and 99% for URS. Only a few patients passed stones spontaneously after serial D-J stenting. The pooled stone free rate (SFR) in URS operations was about 91%. For internal ureteral stent therapy, the rate of normal fertility outcomes was 99%, although the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 45%. For group receiving URS treatment, the rate of normal fertility outcome was 99% and the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 1%. However, the pooled rate of premature birth and abortion were the similar between the two groups (< 1%); the rate of serious complications was also similar between the two groups.ConclusionsAlthough internal ureteral stents may cause more minor complications, both ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stents showed had low rates of adverse effects on fertility outcomes when used to treat pregnant women with symptomatic urolithiasis. Evidence suggests that URS may have a greater advantage for pregnant patients with urinary stones when conditions permit. Since, it has been proven to be safe and effective, internal ureteral stents could be considered in emergency or other special situations.

Dataset Information

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets