Primary versus delayed ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 0.2 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of Clinical Urology Pub Date : 2022-08-08 DOI:10.1177/20514158221088687
M. Alsawi, S. Nalagatla, N. Ahmad, A. Chandiramani, L. Mokool, S. Nalagatla, B. Somani, O. Aboumarzouk, T. Amer
{"title":"Primary versus delayed ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"M. Alsawi, S. Nalagatla, N. Ahmad, A. Chandiramani, L. Mokool, S. Nalagatla, B. Somani, O. Aboumarzouk, T. Amer","doi":"10.1177/20514158221088687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ureteric colic is a major clinical and economic burden on the National Health Service. There has been a recent paradigm shift to consider definitive surgery as the primary intervention at the time of initial presentation. To systematically evaluate the outcomes of primary/emergency ureteroscopy versus delayed/elective ureteroscopy. We performed a critical review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials–CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual urological journals in April 2020. A robust database search was performed using a combination of the terms ‘primary ureteroscopy’, ‘immediate ureteroscopy’, ‘delayed ureteroscopy’ and ‘emergency ureteroscopy’. Adult patients (> 16 years) with ureteric stones presenting as an emergency were included. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies directly comparing primary/emergency to delayed/elective ureteroscopy for an acute presentation of ureteric colic. Across the studies, 1708 patients underwent primary/emergency ureteroscopy for ureteric calculi and 990 underwent delayed ureteroscopy. No significant differences in stone-free rates were found between both groups with primary/emergency achieving 85% and delayed/elective 91% ( p = 0.68). The majority of stones treated were located in the distal ureter in both groups. Overall, there were no differences in complications between the groups ( p = 0.42) or major complications (0.17). However, there were fewer minor complications in the primary URS group ( p = 0.02). Ureteral catheter or double-J stent insertion was used in 71% of delayed/elective ureteroscopy cases, compared to 46.8% of primary/emergency cases (p = 0.001). For patients undergoing primary/emergency ureteroscopy, 6.4% patients required auxiliary procedures. In the delayed/elective group, 7.6% required further definitive treatment (NS). Primary ureteroscopy is a safe and feasible procedure, when performed in suitable patients in the acute setting. It is associated with significantly lower stent usage, equivalent stone clearance, no increase in overall or major complications including sepsis, and fewer minor complications when compared to delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Prospective studies will do well to explore this area further but on current evidence, primary ureteroscopy is the safe procedure. Not applicable","PeriodicalId":15471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Urology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20514158221088687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Ureteric colic is a major clinical and economic burden on the National Health Service. There has been a recent paradigm shift to consider definitive surgery as the primary intervention at the time of initial presentation. To systematically evaluate the outcomes of primary/emergency ureteroscopy versus delayed/elective ureteroscopy. We performed a critical review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials–CENTRAL, CINAHL, Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar and individual urological journals in April 2020. A robust database search was performed using a combination of the terms ‘primary ureteroscopy’, ‘immediate ureteroscopy’, ‘delayed ureteroscopy’ and ‘emergency ureteroscopy’. Adult patients (> 16 years) with ureteric stones presenting as an emergency were included. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with 4 studies directly comparing primary/emergency to delayed/elective ureteroscopy for an acute presentation of ureteric colic. Across the studies, 1708 patients underwent primary/emergency ureteroscopy for ureteric calculi and 990 underwent delayed ureteroscopy. No significant differences in stone-free rates were found between both groups with primary/emergency achieving 85% and delayed/elective 91% ( p = 0.68). The majority of stones treated were located in the distal ureter in both groups. Overall, there were no differences in complications between the groups ( p = 0.42) or major complications (0.17). However, there were fewer minor complications in the primary URS group ( p = 0.02). Ureteral catheter or double-J stent insertion was used in 71% of delayed/elective ureteroscopy cases, compared to 46.8% of primary/emergency cases (p = 0.001). For patients undergoing primary/emergency ureteroscopy, 6.4% patients required auxiliary procedures. In the delayed/elective group, 7.6% required further definitive treatment (NS). Primary ureteroscopy is a safe and feasible procedure, when performed in suitable patients in the acute setting. It is associated with significantly lower stent usage, equivalent stone clearance, no increase in overall or major complications including sepsis, and fewer minor complications when compared to delayed/elective ureteroscopy. Prospective studies will do well to explore this area further but on current evidence, primary ureteroscopy is the safe procedure. Not applicable
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
输尿管结石的初次输尿管镜检查与延迟输尿管镜检查:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
输尿管绞痛是国民健康服务的主要临床和经济负担。最近有一种范式转变,认为在最初表现时,最终手术是主要的干预措施。系统评价原发性/急诊输尿管镜与延迟性/择期输尿管镜的疗效。我们于2020年4月对MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials-CENTRAL、CINAHL、Clinicaltrials.gov、谷歌Scholar和个别泌尿学期刊进行了一项批判性综述。使用“原发性输尿管镜检查”、“即刻输尿管镜检查”、“延迟输尿管镜检查”和“紧急输尿管镜检查”等术语组合进行了强大的数据库搜索。以紧急输尿管结石就诊的成年患者(bb0 - 16岁)被纳入研究对象。12项研究符合纳入标准,其中4项研究直接比较了急性输尿管绞痛的原发性/急诊输尿管镜检查与延迟/择期输尿管镜检查。在这些研究中,1708名患者因输尿管结石接受了初级/紧急输尿管镜检查,990名患者接受了延迟输尿管镜检查。两组间结石清除率无显著差异,初级/急诊达到85%,延迟/选择性达到91% (p = 0.68)。两组治疗的结石大部分位于输尿管远端。总体而言,两组间并发症(p = 0.42)和主要并发症(p = 0.17)均无差异。然而,原发性尿路损伤组的轻微并发症较少(p = 0.02)。71%的延迟/择期输尿管镜病例使用输尿管导管或双j型支架,而46.8%的原发性/急诊病例使用输尿管导管或双j型支架(p = 0.001)。在接受初级/紧急输尿管镜检查的患者中,6.4%的患者需要辅助手术。在延迟/选择性组中,7.6%需要进一步的最终治疗(NS)。输尿管镜检查是一种安全可行的手术,在合适的急性患者中进行。与延迟/择期输尿管镜检查相比,其支架使用率明显降低,结石清除率相当,总体或主要并发症(包括败血症)未增加,轻微并发症较少。前瞻性研究将进一步探索这一领域,但目前的证据表明,输尿管镜检查是安全的。不适用
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
Journal of Clinical Urology
Journal of Clinical Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic value of the abnormal digital rectal examination in the modern MRI-based prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Comparison of the diagnostic utility of CHOKAI, STONE and STONE PLUS scores in predicting ureteral stones larger than 5 mm Quality of life and healthcare resource use in patients with bladder pain syndrome: A survey of UK patients Analysis of the learning curve for Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for a single surgeon Effectiveness of intravesical glycosaminoglycans in the treatment of recurrent urinary tract infections: Systematic review and meta-analysis
×
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