The efficacy and safety of string stents after retrograde intrarenal surgery for urolithiasis.

Q1 Medicine Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 Epub Date: 2019-05-07 DOI:10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03426-X
Athanasios Dellis, Panagiotis Kallidonis, Constantinos Adamou, Nikolaos Kostakopoulos, Dimitrios Kotsiris, Panteleeimon Ntasiotis, Athanasios G Papatsoris
{"title":"The efficacy and safety of string stents after retrograde intrarenal surgery for urolithiasis.","authors":"Athanasios Dellis,&nbsp;Panagiotis Kallidonis,&nbsp;Constantinos Adamou,&nbsp;Nikolaos Kostakopoulos,&nbsp;Dimitrios Kotsiris,&nbsp;Panteleeimon Ntasiotis,&nbsp;Athanasios G Papatsoris","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03426-X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Ureteral stent insertion is frequently chosen after upper tract endourological procedures. The use of stents carrying a suture string is sometimes used to facilitate the extraction of the stent. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide stronger evidence for the efficacy of string stents, by comparing them to non-string stents, in matters of patients' quality of life (QoL), stent-related symptoms (SRS) and complications.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Science. The studies included were only comparative randomized controlled trials which included at least one group with tethered ureteral stent and one group with standard stent after the performance of endoscopic surgery for lithiasis of upper urinary tract. Primary endpoints were QoL expressed as general health, urinary symptoms as well as impact on work performance and SRS, expressed by VAS score. Secondary endpoints included complications such as stent migration, stent dislodgement, urinary tract infections (UTIs), emergency room visits and retained stent.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>We identified nine studies to be included in the qualitative synthesis and 3 randomized controlled trials to be included in the quantitative synthesis and the meta-analysis. The statistical difference in the stent related QoL was insignificant. General health was less affected in the non-string group. The urinary symptoms and the impact on work performance were similar between the groups. VAS pain score during the time that the patients were stented was insignificantly less in the non-string group, while VAS pain score was higher in the non-string group at extraction. Stent dislodgement was more frequent in the string group. There was no difference between the groups concerning the rate of UTIs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Non-string stents affected less the patients' QoL, in terms of general health and urinary symptoms, caused less stent related pain in cases of stent in situ and caused stent dislodgment in fewer patients. On the contrary, string stents caused less pain at extraction. All the aforementioned differences did not reach statistical difference.</p>","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"72 4","pages":"451-463"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03426-X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/5/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Introduction: Ureteral stent insertion is frequently chosen after upper tract endourological procedures. The use of stents carrying a suture string is sometimes used to facilitate the extraction of the stent. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to provide stronger evidence for the efficacy of string stents, by comparing them to non-string stents, in matters of patients' quality of life (QoL), stent-related symptoms (SRS) and complications.

Evidence acquisition: A systematic review was conducted on PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, EMBASE and Web of Science. The studies included were only comparative randomized controlled trials which included at least one group with tethered ureteral stent and one group with standard stent after the performance of endoscopic surgery for lithiasis of upper urinary tract. Primary endpoints were QoL expressed as general health, urinary symptoms as well as impact on work performance and SRS, expressed by VAS score. Secondary endpoints included complications such as stent migration, stent dislodgement, urinary tract infections (UTIs), emergency room visits and retained stent.

Evidence synthesis: We identified nine studies to be included in the qualitative synthesis and 3 randomized controlled trials to be included in the quantitative synthesis and the meta-analysis. The statistical difference in the stent related QoL was insignificant. General health was less affected in the non-string group. The urinary symptoms and the impact on work performance were similar between the groups. VAS pain score during the time that the patients were stented was insignificantly less in the non-string group, while VAS pain score was higher in the non-string group at extraction. Stent dislodgement was more frequent in the string group. There was no difference between the groups concerning the rate of UTIs.

Conclusions: Non-string stents affected less the patients' QoL, in terms of general health and urinary symptoms, caused less stent related pain in cases of stent in situ and caused stent dislodgment in fewer patients. On the contrary, string stents caused less pain at extraction. All the aforementioned differences did not reach statistical difference.

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
逆行肾内手术治疗尿石症后支架置入的疗效和安全性。
导读:输尿管支架置入术经常在上尿路手术后被选择。有时使用带缝线的支架来方便支架的取出。在本系统综述和荟萃分析中,我们旨在通过比较串状支架与非串状支架在患者生活质量(QoL)、支架相关症状(SRS)和并发症方面的疗效,为串状支架的疗效提供更有力的证据。证据获取:对PubMed、SCOPUS、Cochrane、EMBASE和Web of Science进行系统评价。纳入的研究仅为比较随机对照试验,其中至少有一组使用输尿管栓系支架,一组在内镜下治疗上尿路结石后使用标准支架。主要终点为总体健康状况、泌尿系统症状、对工作表现的影响以及VAS评分表示的SRS。次要终点包括支架迁移、支架移位、尿路感染(uti)、急诊室就诊和支架保留等并发症。证据综合:我们确定了9项研究纳入定性综合,3项随机对照试验纳入定量综合和荟萃分析。两组支架相关生活质量差异无统计学意义。非字符串组的一般健康状况受到的影响较小。泌尿系统症状和对工作表现的影响在两组之间相似。非串接组支架置入期间VAS疼痛评分无明显差异,拔牙时VAS疼痛评分高于非串接组。管柱组支架移位更为频繁。两组间尿路感染发生率无差异。结论:在一般健康和泌尿系统症状方面,非串状支架对患者生活质量的影响较小,原位支架引起的支架相关疼痛较少,引起支架移位的患者较少。相反,细绳支架在拔牙时疼痛更小。上述差异均未达到统计学意义上的差异。
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
期刊最新文献
Real-life data on long-term follow-up of patients successfully treated with percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS). Identifying tumor-related risk factors for simultaneous adrenalectomy in patients with cT1 - cT2 kidney cancer during robotic assisted laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. A systematic review of nerve-sparing surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Comparison of outcomes between laparoscopic and robot-assisted partial nephrectomy for complex renal tumors (RENAL score ≥ 7 or maximum tumor size > 4cm): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Totally intracorporeal robotic ileal ureter replacement: focus on surgical technique and outcomes.
×
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