输尿管取出管支架-感染风险及预防综述。

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Central European Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2024.0222
Patryk Osiński, Jakub Bartłomiej Kawecki, Martyna Zofia Stachoń, Izabela Teresa Zawadzka, Ewa Bres-Niewada, Bartosz Dybowski
{"title":"输尿管取出管支架-感染风险及预防综述。","authors":"Patryk Osiński, Jakub Bartłomiej Kawecki, Martyna Zofia Stachoń, Izabela Teresa Zawadzka, Ewa Bres-Niewada, Bartosz Dybowski","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This review aims to determine whether the use of ureteral stents with extraction strings in adult patients undergoing upper urinary tract endoscopic procedures results in a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) compared to stents without strings.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating differences in UTI rates among adult patients with ureteral stents with or without extraction strings were included. Data on UTI rates, antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, and stent dwell time were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 11 trials published between 2015 and 2023. One multicenter retrospective study involving 4,392 patients reported a significantly higher UTI rate in patients with extraction strings (2.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006). In the remaining 10 studies, including four randomized controlled trials, the differences were not statistically significant. Antibiotic prophylaxis was described in five studies. In two studies, a single perioperative antibiotic dose was administered, with a total UTI rate of 6.8% (28/410). In contrast, three studies using prolonged prophylactic antibiotic regimens reported a total UTI rate of 3.2% (13/403). The impact of stent dwell time on UTI risk could not be determined. The risk of bias was high in 10 studies and moderate in one retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on low-quality evidence, the difference in UTI risk between ureteral stents with and without extraction strings appears to be minimal and statistically insignificant. Well-designed studies with standardized methodologies are needed to clarify these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 1","pages":"94-99"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12073513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ureteral stents with extraction strings - a review on infection risk and prevention.\",\"authors\":\"Patryk Osiński, Jakub Bartłomiej Kawecki, Martyna Zofia Stachoń, Izabela Teresa Zawadzka, Ewa Bres-Niewada, Bartosz Dybowski\",\"doi\":\"10.5173/ceju.2024.0222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This review aims to determine whether the use of ureteral stents with extraction strings in adult patients undergoing upper urinary tract endoscopic procedures results in a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) compared to stents without strings.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating differences in UTI rates among adult patients with ureteral stents with or without extraction strings were included. Data on UTI rates, antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, and stent dwell time were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review included 11 trials published between 2015 and 2023. One multicenter retrospective study involving 4,392 patients reported a significantly higher UTI rate in patients with extraction strings (2.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006). In the remaining 10 studies, including four randomized controlled trials, the differences were not statistically significant. Antibiotic prophylaxis was described in five studies. In two studies, a single perioperative antibiotic dose was administered, with a total UTI rate of 6.8% (28/410). In contrast, three studies using prolonged prophylactic antibiotic regimens reported a total UTI rate of 3.2% (13/403). The impact of stent dwell time on UTI risk could not be determined. The risk of bias was high in 10 studies and moderate in one retrospective study.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on low-quality evidence, the difference in UTI risk between ureteral stents with and without extraction strings appears to be minimal and statistically insignificant. Well-designed studies with standardized methodologies are needed to clarify these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9744,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"94-99\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12073513/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Central European Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2024.0222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Central European Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2024.0222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本综述旨在确定在接受上尿路内镜手术的成年患者中,与不使用输尿管支架相比,使用带拔出管的输尿管支架是否会导致尿路感染(uti)的发生率更高。材料和方法:使用PubMed、Scopus和谷歌Scholar进行系统的文献检索。研究评估了输尿管支架患者与非输尿管支架患者尿路感染发生率的差异。提取尿路感染发生率、抗生素预防方案和支架停留时间的数据。结果:该综述纳入了2015年至2023年间发表的11项试验。一项涉及4,392例患者的多中心回顾性研究报告,拔牙串患者的UTI发生率显著高于拔牙串患者(2.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006)。在其余10项研究中,包括4项随机对照试验,差异无统计学意义。五项研究描述了抗生素预防。在两项研究中,围手术期给予单剂量抗生素,总UTI率为6.8%(28/410)。相比之下,使用长期预防性抗生素方案的三项研究报告的尿路感染总发生率为3.2%(13/403)。支架停留时间对尿路感染风险的影响尚不能确定。10项研究偏倚风险高,1项回顾性研究偏倚风险中等。结论:基于低质量的证据,输尿管支架有和没有抽出管之间UTI风险的差异似乎很小,统计学上不显著。需要使用标准化方法进行精心设计的研究来澄清这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ureteral stents with extraction strings - a review on infection risk and prevention.

Introduction: This review aims to determine whether the use of ureteral stents with extraction strings in adult patients undergoing upper urinary tract endoscopic procedures results in a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) compared to stents without strings.

Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating differences in UTI rates among adult patients with ureteral stents with or without extraction strings were included. Data on UTI rates, antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, and stent dwell time were extracted.

Results: The review included 11 trials published between 2015 and 2023. One multicenter retrospective study involving 4,392 patients reported a significantly higher UTI rate in patients with extraction strings (2.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006). In the remaining 10 studies, including four randomized controlled trials, the differences were not statistically significant. Antibiotic prophylaxis was described in five studies. In two studies, a single perioperative antibiotic dose was administered, with a total UTI rate of 6.8% (28/410). In contrast, three studies using prolonged prophylactic antibiotic regimens reported a total UTI rate of 3.2% (13/403). The impact of stent dwell time on UTI risk could not be determined. The risk of bias was high in 10 studies and moderate in one retrospective study.

Conclusions: Based on low-quality evidence, the difference in UTI risk between ureteral stents with and without extraction strings appears to be minimal and statistically insignificant. Well-designed studies with standardized methodologies are needed to clarify these findings.

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
Central European Journal of Urology
Central European Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
48
×
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