Prophylactic ureteric catheterisation during complex gynaecological surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 4.7 1区医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY

Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Pub Date : 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.17823

Mahalakshmi Gurumurthy, Alice E. McGee, Lucky Saraswat

{"title":"Prophylactic ureteric catheterisation during complex gynaecological surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Mahalakshmi Gurumurthy, Alice E. McGee, Lucky Saraswat","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.17823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>There is a lack of robust evidence to recommend the use of perioperative ureteric catheterisation or stenting in complex gynaecological surgery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the evidence on the benefits and risks of perioperative ureteric catheterisation or stenting in complex gynaecological surgery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search strategy</h3>\n \n <p>A literature search was performed in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE, from 1946 to January 2024, using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection criteria</h3>\n \n <p>Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data collection and analysis</h3>\n \n <p>Meta-analysis of the RCTs and observational studies were performed separately. Cochrane RevMan 6.5.1 was used to undertake meta-analysis. Risk ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcome measures.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main results</h3>\n \n <p>Ten studies were included: three RCTs and seven observational studies, comprising 8661 patients. The three RCTs, comprising a total of 3277 patients, showed no difference in the risk of immediate complications in the form of ureteric injury between the ureteric stent and the control groups (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.49–1.65). The observational studies included 5384 patients. Four studies that explored the ureteric injury as an outcome did not show any difference between the two groups (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.27–2.16). One case–control study with 862 participants found that the rate of ureteric injury was higher in the non-stented group, although this was observed in only three patients. The risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) was increased in the stent group, although not with statistical significance (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.47–7.17). There was no significant difference in the risk of ureteric fistulae (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.62–5.83), although the number of studies was limited.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Prophylactic ureteric catheterisation or stenting for complex gynaecological surgery is not associated with a lower risk of ureteric injury.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17823","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

There is a lack of robust evidence to recommend the use of perioperative ureteric catheterisation or stenting in complex gynaecological surgery.

Objectives

To evaluate the evidence on the benefits and risks of perioperative ureteric catheterisation or stenting in complex gynaecological surgery.

Search strategy

A literature search was performed in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase and MEDLINE, from 1946 to January 2024, using a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terminology.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies were included.

Data collection and analysis

Meta-analysis of the RCTs and observational studies were performed separately. Cochrane RevMan 6.5.1 was used to undertake meta-analysis. Risk ratios with 95% CIs were calculated for the outcome measures.

Main results

Ten studies were included: three RCTs and seven observational studies, comprising 8661 patients. The three RCTs, comprising a total of 3277 patients, showed no difference in the risk of immediate complications in the form of ureteric injury between the ureteric stent and the control groups (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.49–1.65). The observational studies included 5384 patients. Four studies that explored the ureteric injury as an outcome did not show any difference between the two groups (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.27–2.16). One case–control study with 862 participants found that the rate of ureteric injury was higher in the non-stented group, although this was observed in only three patients. The risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) was increased in the stent group, although not with statistical significance (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.47–7.17). There was no significant difference in the risk of ureteric fistulae (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.62–5.83), although the number of studies was limited.

Conclusions

Prophylactic ureteric catheterisation or stenting for complex gynaecological surgery is not associated with a lower risk of ureteric injury.

查看原文本刊更多论文

复杂妇科手术中的预防性输尿管导管插入术：系统回顾和荟萃分析

在复杂的妇科手术中使用围手术期输尿管导管插入术或支架植入术的建议缺乏有力的证据。

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

Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 医学-妇产科学

CiteScore

10.90

自引率

5.20%

发文量

345

审稿时长

3-6 weeks

期刊介绍： BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.