经皮肾造瘘术与输尿管支架治疗梗阻性尿路结石继发肾积水:系统回顾和荟萃分析

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Andreia Cardoso , Aparício Coutinho , Gonçalo Neto , Sara Anacleto , Catarina Laranjo Tinoco , Nuno Morais , Mário Cerqueira-Alves , Estevão Lima , Paulo Mota
{"title":"经皮肾造瘘术与输尿管支架治疗梗阻性尿路结石继发肾积水:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Andreia Cardoso ,&nbsp;Aparício Coutinho ,&nbsp;Gonçalo Neto ,&nbsp;Sara Anacleto ,&nbsp;Catarina Laranjo Tinoco ,&nbsp;Nuno Morais ,&nbsp;Mário Cerqueira-Alves ,&nbsp;Estevão Lima ,&nbsp;Paulo Mota","doi":"10.1016/j.ajur.2023.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess if there is a preferable intervention between retrograde ureteral stent (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube, in cases of upper urinary tract stone obstruction with complications requiring urgent drainage, by evaluating outcomes regarding urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL), spontaneous stone passage, and length of hospital stays, since there is no literature stating the superiority of one modality over the other.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched MEDLINE and other sources for relevant articles in June 2019 without any date restrictions or filters applied. The selection was done first by the title and abstract screening and then by full-text assessment for eligibility. Only randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in patients with hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis that presented comparative data between PCN and RUS placement concerning at least one of the defined outcome measures were included. Lastly, MEDLINE database and PubMed platform were screened again using the same terms, from June 2019 until November 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 556 initial articles, seven were included in this review. Most works were considered of moderate-to-high quality. Three studies regarding QoL showed a tendency against stenting, even though only one demonstrated statistically significant negative impact on overall health state. Two works reported significantly more post-intervention urinary symptoms in stenting patients. One article found that PCN is a significant predictor of spontaneous stone passage, when adjusted for stone size and location. Findings on length of hospital stays were not consistent among articles.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PCN appears to be the intervention better tolerated, with less impact on the patient’s perceived QoL and less post-operative urinary symptoms, in comparison with RUS. Nevertheless, further studies with larger samples and a randomized controlled design are suggested.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46599,"journal":{"name":"Asian Journal of Urology","volume":"11 2","pages":"Pages 261-270"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223001431/pdfft?md5=67b963992974d28f6569b36716460e00&pid=1-s2.0-S2214388223001431-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stent in hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Andreia Cardoso ,&nbsp;Aparício Coutinho ,&nbsp;Gonçalo Neto ,&nbsp;Sara Anacleto ,&nbsp;Catarina Laranjo Tinoco ,&nbsp;Nuno Morais ,&nbsp;Mário Cerqueira-Alves ,&nbsp;Estevão Lima ,&nbsp;Paulo Mota\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajur.2023.03.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To assess if there is a preferable intervention between retrograde ureteral stent (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube, in cases of upper urinary tract stone obstruction with complications requiring urgent drainage, by evaluating outcomes regarding urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL), spontaneous stone passage, and length of hospital stays, since there is no literature stating the superiority of one modality over the other.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched MEDLINE and other sources for relevant articles in June 2019 without any date restrictions or filters applied. The selection was done first by the title and abstract screening and then by full-text assessment for eligibility. Only randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in patients with hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis that presented comparative data between PCN and RUS placement concerning at least one of the defined outcome measures were included. Lastly, MEDLINE database and PubMed platform were screened again using the same terms, from June 2019 until November 2022.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 556 initial articles, seven were included in this review. Most works were considered of moderate-to-high quality. Three studies regarding QoL showed a tendency against stenting, even though only one demonstrated statistically significant negative impact on overall health state. Two works reported significantly more post-intervention urinary symptoms in stenting patients. One article found that PCN is a significant predictor of spontaneous stone passage, when adjusted for stone size and location. Findings on length of hospital stays were not consistent among articles.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>PCN appears to be the intervention better tolerated, with less impact on the patient’s perceived QoL and less post-operative urinary symptoms, in comparison with RUS. Nevertheless, further studies with larger samples and a randomized controlled design are suggested.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"11 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 261-270\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223001431/pdfft?md5=67b963992974d28f6569b36716460e00&pid=1-s2.0-S2214388223001431-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223001431\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214388223001431","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 通过评估泌尿系统症状、生活质量(QoL)、结石自发排出和住院时间等方面的结果,评估在上尿路结石梗阻并伴有需要紧急引流的并发症的病例中,逆行输尿管支架(RUS)和经皮肾造瘘管(PCN)之间是否存在更优的干预方式,因为目前还没有文献说明其中一种方式优于另一种方式。方法 我们检索了 2019 年 6 月的 MEDLINE 和其他来源的相关文章,没有使用任何日期限制或筛选器。首先对文章标题和摘要进行筛选,然后对全文进行资格评估。只有针对梗阻性尿路结石继发肾积水患者进行的随机对照试验或队列研究,且提供了 PCN 和 RUS 置管术之间至少一项定义结果指标的比较数据,方可纳入。最后,从 2019 年 6 月到 2022 年 11 月,使用相同的术语再次筛选了 MEDLINE 数据库和 PubMed 平台。大多数文章被认为质量中等偏上。关于 QoL 的三项研究显示,尽管只有一项研究表明支架植入术对总体健康状况有统计学意义上的显著负面影响,但仍有反对的倾向。有两篇研究报告称,支架植入术后患者的泌尿系统症状明显增多。一篇文章发现,根据结石大小和位置进行调整后,PCN 可显著预测结石的自发排出。结论与 RUS 相比,PCN 似乎是一种耐受性更好的干预方法,对患者感知的生活质量影响更小,术后泌尿系统症状更少。尽管如此,仍建议进一步开展样本量更大、采用随机对照设计的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stent in hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To assess if there is a preferable intervention between retrograde ureteral stent (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube, in cases of upper urinary tract stone obstruction with complications requiring urgent drainage, by evaluating outcomes regarding urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL), spontaneous stone passage, and length of hospital stays, since there is no literature stating the superiority of one modality over the other.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE and other sources for relevant articles in June 2019 without any date restrictions or filters applied. The selection was done first by the title and abstract screening and then by full-text assessment for eligibility. Only randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in patients with hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis that presented comparative data between PCN and RUS placement concerning at least one of the defined outcome measures were included. Lastly, MEDLINE database and PubMed platform were screened again using the same terms, from June 2019 until November 2022.

Results

Of 556 initial articles, seven were included in this review. Most works were considered of moderate-to-high quality. Three studies regarding QoL showed a tendency against stenting, even though only one demonstrated statistically significant negative impact on overall health state. Two works reported significantly more post-intervention urinary symptoms in stenting patients. One article found that PCN is a significant predictor of spontaneous stone passage, when adjusted for stone size and location. Findings on length of hospital stays were not consistent among articles.

Conclusion

PCN appears to be the intervention better tolerated, with less impact on the patient’s perceived QoL and less post-operative urinary symptoms, in comparison with RUS. Nevertheless, further studies with larger samples and a randomized controlled design are suggested.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Asian Journal of Urology
Asian Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.80%
发文量
100
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Asian Journal of Urology (AJUR), launched in October 2014, is an international peer-reviewed Open Access journal jointly founded by Shanghai Association for Science and Technology (SAST) and Second Military Medical University (SMMU). AJUR aims to build a communication platform for international researchers to effectively share scholarly achievements. It focuses on all specialties of urology both scientifically and clinically, with article types widely covering editorials, opinions, perspectives, reviews and mini-reviews, original articles, cases reports, rapid communications, and letters, etc. Fields of particular interest to the journal including, but not limited to: • Surgical oncology • Endourology • Calculi • Female urology • Erectile dysfunction • Infertility • Pediatric urology • Renal transplantation • Reconstructive surgery • Radiology • Pathology • Neurourology.
×
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