Role of ureteral stent material and coating to prevent ureteral stent related issue: A systematic review and meta analysis.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia Pub Date : 2024-03-04 DOI:10.4081/aiua.2024.12067
Ignatius Ivan Putrantyo, Syah Mirsya Warli, Ginanda Putra Siregar, Fauriski Febrian Prapiska, Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar, Bungaran Sihombing
{"title":"Role of ureteral stent material and coating to prevent ureteral stent related issue: A systematic review and meta analysis.","authors":"Ignatius Ivan Putrantyo, Syah Mirsya Warli, Ginanda Putra Siregar, Fauriski Febrian Prapiska, Dhirajaya Dharma Kadar, Bungaran Sihombing","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ureteral stents require materials that balance bulk and surface properties. Achieving both can be challenging, as ideal bulk properties may not align with optimal surface properties. Thus, researching coatings and biomanufacturing methods for ideal materials is essential.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA Guidelines, involved literature searches across five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ClinicalKey, and Cochrane. From 417 screened articles, eight studies were deemed eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The selected articles underwent bias assessment using ROB Tools 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The systematic review analyzed 1.356 participants. Findings revealed that firm ureteral stents significantly increased risk of infection, hematuria, and lower body pain. On the contrary, soft stents reduced infection (OR: 0.62; p=0.004), hematuria (OR: 0.60; p<0.001), and lower body pain (OR: 0.63; p=0.0002). However, infection reduction effect was uncertain due to heterogeneity. Coated vs non-coated material analysis found no difference in encrustation (OR: 1.26; p=0.52) or infection (OR: 1.67; p=0.99). Stent firmness did not affect encrustation on double J stent (OR: 0.97; p=0.17).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Softer materials like silicone are preferred for ureteral stents to reduce symptoms like hematuria and lower body pain. Coatings like silver nanoparticles and triclosan, while enhancing antimicrobial properties, did not effectively lower infection risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Ureteral stents require materials that balance bulk and surface properties. Achieving both can be challenging, as ideal bulk properties may not align with optimal surface properties. Thus, researching coatings and biomanufacturing methods for ideal materials is essential.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA Guidelines, involved literature searches across five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, ClinicalKey, and Cochrane. From 417 screened articles, eight studies were deemed eligible for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The selected articles underwent bias assessment using ROB Tools 2.

Results: The systematic review analyzed 1.356 participants. Findings revealed that firm ureteral stents significantly increased risk of infection, hematuria, and lower body pain. On the contrary, soft stents reduced infection (OR: 0.62; p=0.004), hematuria (OR: 0.60; p<0.001), and lower body pain (OR: 0.63; p=0.0002). However, infection reduction effect was uncertain due to heterogeneity. Coated vs non-coated material analysis found no difference in encrustation (OR: 1.26; p=0.52) or infection (OR: 1.67; p=0.99). Stent firmness did not affect encrustation on double J stent (OR: 0.97; p=0.17).

Conclusions: Softer materials like silicone are preferred for ureteral stents to reduce symptoms like hematuria and lower body pain. Coatings like silver nanoparticles and triclosan, while enhancing antimicrobial properties, did not effectively lower infection risk.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
输尿管支架材料和涂层在预防输尿管支架相关问题中的作用:系统综述与荟萃分析。
引言输尿管支架需要兼顾体积和表面特性的材料。要同时兼顾这两种特性可能具有挑战性,因为理想的体积特性可能与最佳的表面特性不一致。因此,研究理想材料的涂层和生物制造方法至关重要:方法:按照 PRISMA 准则进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,涉及五个数据库的文献检索:PubMed、Scopus、Embase、ClinicalKey 和 Cochrane。从筛选出的 417 篇文章中,有 8 项研究被认为符合定性和定量分析的条件。所选文章使用 ROB Tools 2 进行了偏倚评估:系统综述分析了 1.356 名参与者。研究结果显示,坚硬的输尿管支架会明显增加感染、血尿和下半身疼痛的风险。相反,软支架可减少感染(OR:0.62;p = 0.004)、血尿(OR:0.60;p = < 0.001)和下身疼痛(OR:0.63;p = 0.0002)。然而,由于存在异质性,减少感染的效果并不确定。涂层材料与非涂层材料分析发现,在结壳(OR:1.26;p = 0.52)或感染(OR:1.67;p = 0.99)方面没有差异。支架的硬度对双 J 支架的结壳没有影响(OR:0.97;P = 0.17):结论:输尿管支架首选硅胶等较软的材料,以减少血尿和下半身疼痛等症状。纳米银粒子和三氯生等涂层虽然增强了抗菌性能,但并不能有效降低感染风险。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
35.70%
发文量
72
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Bottoms-up" minimally-invasive approach to inguinal lymph node dissection for penile cancer management. A single-center comparative study versus open approach and review. A systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term complications of early versus delayed penile prosthesis implantation in patients with ischemic priapism. Adverse events related to laser fibers and laser machines during ureteroscopy and stone lithotripsy: Insights from an updated 10-year analysis of the US MAUDE database. Can serum 17-hydroxy progesterone predict an improvement in semen parameters following micro-varicocelectomy? A prospective study. CFTR Exon 10 deleterious mutations in patients with congenital bilateral absence of vas deferens in a cohort of Pakistani patients.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1