Stent diameter and stent-related symptoms, does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Syed Ali Ehsanullah, Angus Bruce, Charlotte Juman, Anil Krishan, Alisha Krishan, Jake Higginbottom, Shehab Khashaba, Ziad Alnaib
{"title":"Stent diameter and stent-related symptoms, does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Syed Ali Ehsanullah,&nbsp;Angus Bruce,&nbsp;Charlotte Juman,&nbsp;Anil Krishan,&nbsp;Alisha Krishan,&nbsp;Jake Higginbottom,&nbsp;Shehab Khashaba,&nbsp;Ziad Alnaib","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_158_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ureteral insertion of a silicone tube was first performed in 1967. A validated ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) is used for an objective assessment of patient-reported stent-related symptoms. As the impact of stent diameter on the incidence of stent-related symptoms is unclear, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing USSQ reported outcomes when using a 6 Fr diameter ureteric stent, versus smaller diameter stents (4.7-5 Fr) when inserted for ureteric stones. All randomized control trials and comparative studies of 6 Fr versus 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stents were reviewed. The USSQ outcomes were considered as the primary outcome measures while stent migration was considered as a secondary outcome measure. A total of 61 articles were identified of which four studies met the eligibility criteria. There was a statistically significant association between the use of wider (6 Fr) diameter stents and the incidence of urinary symptoms as measured by the urinary index score. Larger stent diameters were associated with a statistically significant increase in the pain index score. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores between the compared stent diameters with regard to work performance score, general health index score, additional problems index score, and stent migration. There were insufficient reported outcomes to perform a meta-analysis of sexual matters index score. Our meta-analysis shows that using smaller diameter ureteric stents is associated with reduced urinary symptoms and patient-reported pain. Other USSQ parameter outcomes are statistically similar in the 6 Fr ureteric stent cohort versus the 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stent cohort. Our meta-analysis was limited due to the limited number of studies and gross heterogeneity of reporting parameters in various studies. We hope a large-scale homogeneous randomized control trial will further shed more insight into the stent symptoms response to stent diameter.</p>","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"14 4","pages":"295-302"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/61/70/UA-14-295.PMC9731185.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_158_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The ureteral insertion of a silicone tube was first performed in 1967. A validated ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) is used for an objective assessment of patient-reported stent-related symptoms. As the impact of stent diameter on the incidence of stent-related symptoms is unclear, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing USSQ reported outcomes when using a 6 Fr diameter ureteric stent, versus smaller diameter stents (4.7-5 Fr) when inserted for ureteric stones. All randomized control trials and comparative studies of 6 Fr versus 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stents were reviewed. The USSQ outcomes were considered as the primary outcome measures while stent migration was considered as a secondary outcome measure. A total of 61 articles were identified of which four studies met the eligibility criteria. There was a statistically significant association between the use of wider (6 Fr) diameter stents and the incidence of urinary symptoms as measured by the urinary index score. Larger stent diameters were associated with a statistically significant increase in the pain index score. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores between the compared stent diameters with regard to work performance score, general health index score, additional problems index score, and stent migration. There were insufficient reported outcomes to perform a meta-analysis of sexual matters index score. Our meta-analysis shows that using smaller diameter ureteric stents is associated with reduced urinary symptoms and patient-reported pain. Other USSQ parameter outcomes are statistically similar in the 6 Fr ureteric stent cohort versus the 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stent cohort. Our meta-analysis was limited due to the limited number of studies and gross heterogeneity of reporting parameters in various studies. We hope a large-scale homogeneous randomized control trial will further shed more insight into the stent symptoms response to stent diameter.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

支架直径和支架相关症状,大小重要吗?系统回顾和荟萃分析。
硅胶管输尿管插入术于1967年首次实施。经验证的输尿管支架症状问卷(USSQ)用于客观评估患者报告的支架相关症状。由于支架直径对支架相关症状发生率的影响尚不清楚,我们的目的是进行系统回顾和meta分析,比较USSQ报道的输尿管结石患者使用6fr直径的输尿管支架与使用较小直径的输尿管支架(4.7- 5fr)的结果。我们回顾了6fr与4.7- 5fr输尿管支架的所有随机对照试验和比较研究。USSQ结果被认为是主要指标,而支架迁移被认为是次要指标。共纳入61篇文章,其中4篇研究符合入选标准。使用更宽(6fr)直径的支架与泌尿系统症状的发生率(通过泌尿指数评分测量)之间存在统计学上显著的关联。较大的支架直径与疼痛指数评分有统计学意义的增加相关。比较的支架直径在工作绩效评分、一般健康指数评分、附加问题指数评分和支架迁移方面的评分无统计学差异。没有足够的报告结果来进行性问题指数评分的荟萃分析。我们的荟萃分析显示,使用直径较小的输尿管支架可减少泌尿系统症状和患者报告的疼痛。6fr输尿管支架组与4.7- 5fr输尿管支架组的其他USSQ参数结果在统计学上相似。由于研究数量有限和各种研究报告参数的总体异质性,我们的荟萃分析受到限制。我们希望一项大规模的均匀随机对照试验能进一步揭示支架症状对支架直径的反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信