Comparison of External Ureteral Catheter and Double-J stent as Drainage Methods for Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY International Braz J Urol Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0356
Clarissa Tania, Edwin Tobing, Christiano Tansol
{"title":"Comparison of External Ureteral Catheter and Double-J stent as Drainage Methods for Tubeless Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Clarissa Tania, Edwin Tobing, Christiano Tansol","doi":"10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The external ureteral catheter (EUC) and double-J stent (DJ-stent) are frequently used for drainage in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aims to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of these two methods.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We conducted a detailed literature search using relevant key words on Google Scholar, Europe PMC, Medline, and Scopus databases. Continuous variables were combined using mean difference (MD), while binary variables were analysed using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals through random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included nine studies. The results showed that EUC was associated with a significantly lower incidence of stent-related symptoms [RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.19 - 0.54), p < 0.0001, I² = 24%] compared to the DJ-stent. There were no significant differences between EUC and DJ-stent in terms of postoperative fever (p = 0.92), urine leakage (p = 0.21), perinephric collection (p = 0.85), haemoglobin drop (p = 0.06), transfusion rate (p = 0.27), VAS score (p = 0.67), analgesic requirements (p = 0.59), stone-free rate (p = 0.14), duration of surgery (p = 0.10), and duration of hospitalization (p = 0.50).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The EUC demonstrated fewer stent-related symptoms than the DJ-stent in tubeless PCNL, while both methods showed comparable safety and efficacy. The choice between EUC and DJ-stent should consider patient preferences and surgeon expertise. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with larger sample sizes are needed to affirm these results.</p>","PeriodicalId":49283,"journal":{"name":"International Braz J Urol","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11869928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Braz J Urol","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2024.0356","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The external ureteral catheter (EUC) and double-J stent (DJ-stent) are frequently used for drainage in tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). This study aims to compare the outcomes and effectiveness of these two methods.

Materials and methods: We conducted a detailed literature search using relevant key words on Google Scholar, Europe PMC, Medline, and Scopus databases. Continuous variables were combined using mean difference (MD), while binary variables were analysed using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals through random-effects models.

Results: Our analysis included nine studies. The results showed that EUC was associated with a significantly lower incidence of stent-related symptoms [RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.19 - 0.54), p < 0.0001, I² = 24%] compared to the DJ-stent. There were no significant differences between EUC and DJ-stent in terms of postoperative fever (p = 0.92), urine leakage (p = 0.21), perinephric collection (p = 0.85), haemoglobin drop (p = 0.06), transfusion rate (p = 0.27), VAS score (p = 0.67), analgesic requirements (p = 0.59), stone-free rate (p = 0.14), duration of surgery (p = 0.10), and duration of hospitalization (p = 0.50).

Conclusion: The EUC demonstrated fewer stent-related symptoms than the DJ-stent in tubeless PCNL, while both methods showed comparable safety and efficacy. The choice between EUC and DJ-stent should consider patient preferences and surgeon expertise. Further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with larger sample sizes are needed to affirm these results.

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
输尿管外导管与双J支架作为无管经皮肾镜碎石术引流方法的比较:系统综述与元分析》。
目的:输尿管外导管(EUC)和双J支架(DJ-stent)常用于无管经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)的引流。本研究旨在比较这两种方法的结果和有效性:我们使用相关关键词在 Google Scholar、Europe PMC、Medline 和 Scopus 数据库中进行了详细的文献检索。连续变量采用平均差(MD)进行组合,二元变量采用风险比(RR)进行分析,并通过随机效应模型得出 95% 的置信区间:我们的分析包括 9 项研究。结果显示,与 DJ 支架相比,EUC 与支架相关症状的发生率明显较低[RR 0.32 (95% CI 0.19 - 0.54),P < 0.0001,I² = 24%]。在术后发热(p = 0.92)、漏尿(p = 0.21)、肾周积水(p = 0.85)、血红蛋白下降(p = 0.06)、输血率(p = 0.27)、VAS 评分(p = 0.67)、镇痛剂需求(p = 0.59)、无结石率(p = 0.14)、手术时间(p = 0.10)和住院时间(p = 0.50):结论:在无管 PCNL 中,EUC 比 DJ 支架显示出更少的支架相关症状,两种方法的安全性和有效性相当。在选择EUC还是DJ支架时,应考虑患者的偏好和外科医生的专业知识。要确认这些结果,还需要进一步开展样本量更大的随机对照试验(RCT)。
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
International Braz J Urol
International Braz J Urol UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
21.60%
发文量
246
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Iatrogenic Ureteropelvic Junction Disruption from Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery: Early Repair using The SP Robotic System. Urachal Carcinomas: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Advancing Surgical Management of Penile Cancer: Single Port Bilateral Inguinal Lymph Node Dissection. Management of Adverse Effects in Testosterone Replacement Therapy. Multicenter Retrospective Registry Study on BCG Use in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer in Latin America: BLATAM (Bladder Cancer in Latin America) Group.
×
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