Dataset Information

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Objective: This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of the upper urinary calculi between single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) and reusable flexible ureteroscope (ru-fURS). Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus database, and CNKI databases within a period from the date of database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses. Results: A total of 1,020 patients were included in the seven studies. The statistical differences were only found in the Clavien-Dindo grade II postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.23-0.98; p = 0.04]. No significant statistical differences were observed in operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), and stone-free rate (SFR). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that su-fURS, compared with ru-fURS, has similar effectiveness and better security for treating upper urinary calculi.

SUBMITTER: Meng C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8548426 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Meng Chunyang C Peng Lei L Li Jinze J Li Yunxiang Y Li Jinming J Wu Ji J

Frontiers in surgery 20211013

Objective: This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of the upper urinary calculi between single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) and reusable flexible ureteroscope (ru-fURS). Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus database, and CNKI databases within a period from the date of database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses. Results: A tota ...[more]

PMID: 34722620

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUrologists are gradually beginning to use single-use ureteroscopes (sufURSs), despite a lack of high-level evidence as to their efficacy and safety. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (no. CRD42020181808).MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published before October 1, 2020. Jadad score tools were used to evaluate the quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the included nonrandomized studies. Two researchers independently extracted data according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) principles. A data synthesis was performed using Stata 15.0. Heterogeneity was mainly evaluated with I2 tests. In addition to funnel plots, Egger's and Begg's tests were used to detect publication bias. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. Stone-free rates and postoperative complications were the 2 primary outcomes; operation-time data were also extracted.ResultsSix studies (comprising 887 patients) containing the efficacy data and 5 studies (comprising 952 patients) containing the safety data that were finally included in the quantitative analysis. In relation to stone removal, no significant difference was found in terms of efficacy [Mantel-Haenszel statistic (M-H), relative risk (RR): 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.07, P=0.658) or safety (M-H, RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.96-1.75, P=0.093) between the sufURS and the reusable flexible ureteroscope (rfURS), and no significant heterogeneity was found. A publication bias was detected in the efficacy comparison; however, the trim-and-fill analysis indicated that the original synthesis results remained stable.ConclusionsIn relation to stone removal, sufURSs were found to be comparable to rfURS, and no compromising complications were found. However, the results should be treated with caution due to limitations related to the small number of studies included in the analysis.

Project description:Background and Objectives: Disposable flexible ureteroscopes have been widely used because of their cost-effectiveness and higher sterility potential compared with reusable flexible ureteroscopes. This study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes and complication rates in patients who undergo reusable or disposable flexible ureteroscopic stone surgeries (fURS) for urinary stone disease. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022331291). Clinical trials comparing reusable and disposable fURS for stone disease were found from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science up to March 2022. Participants were patients with upper urinary tract stones; the interventions were reusable or disposable fURS. Outcomes, including stone-free rate, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate, were compared for analysis. Results: Overall, 111 studies were identified, but after removing duplicate studies, 75 studies remained. Thirty-two of these studies were excluded. Of the 43 screened studies, 11 met the eligibility criteria. There was no difference in the stone-free rate (SFR) between disposable and reusable fURS (p = 0.14; OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.04). For operation time, no difference was identified between reusable and disposable fURS groups (p = 0.12; MD = -5.31; 95% CI, -12.08 to 1.46). For hospital stay, there was also no difference between the two groups (p = 0.61; MD = -0.03; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.10). There was no significant difference in complication rate between the two groups (p = 0.85; OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.61). Conclusions: There were no differences in the SFR, operation time, length of hospital stay, and complication rate between reusable and disposable fURS. Disposable fURS may be a comparable alternative to reusable fURS.

Project description:Background: ShuoTong ureteroscopy (Sotn-ureteroscopy, ST-URS), a new lithotripsy operation method developed on the basis of ureteroscopy, is widely used to treat ureteral stones in China. Its composition includes rigid ureteral access sheath, standard mirror, lithotripsy mirror, and ShuoTong perfusion aspirator (ST-APM). Here, we compared the efficacy and safety of the ST-URS and the flexible ureteroscope (F-URS) holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of unilateral upper ureteral calculi. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 280 patients who met the inclusion 1) urinary tract CT was diagnosed with unilateral single upper ureteral calculi above the L4 lumbar spine; 2) patient age was from 18 to 80 years old; 3) patients were informed and consented to this study; and 4) patients were approved by the hospital ethics committee (proof number: KY-2019-020) and the exclusion criteria for unilateral upper ureteral calculi in the First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University from January 2018 to November 2020, and they were divided into the ST-URS group and the flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS) group. Results: The stone-free rate of 1 day after operation of the ST-URS group was significantly higher than the F-URS group (63.71 vs. 34.62%, P < 0.0001). The operative time (38.45 vs. 46.18 min, P = 0.005) and hospitalization cost (27,203 vs. 33,220 Yuan, P < 0.0001) of the ST-URS group were significantly lower than the F-URS group. There were no significant differences in the success rate of ureteral access sheath placement, operative blood loss, stone-free rate of 1 month after operation, postoperative complications, postoperative hospital stay, and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain score between the two groups (P > 0.05). In subgroups of a diameter of calculi ≥ 1.5 cm, calculi CT numerical value ≥ 1,000 Hounsfield unit and the preoperative hydronephrosis range ≥ 3.0 cm, ST-URS shows more advantages in the operative time, stone-free rate of 1 day after the operation, the hospitalization cost, and the incidence of postoperative complications. Conclusion: In unilateral upper ureteral stones treated with a holmium laser, compared with the simple F-URS, the ST-URS has a shorter operative time, lower hospitalization cost, and a higher stone-free rate of 1 day after the operation, suggesting that the ST-URS could be more widely applied in clinics.

Dataset Information

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets