妊娠期尿石症的管理:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY Scandinavian Journal of Surgery Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1177/14574969221145774
Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr, Sona Tayebi, Nooriyeh DalirAkbari, Amir Ghabousian, Fateme Tahmasbi, Fatemeh Rahmati, Amirreza Naseri, Reyhaneh Hajebrahimi, Robab Mehdipour, Mahdi Hemmati-Ghavshough, Ali Mostafaei, Sakineh Hajebrahimi
{"title":"妊娠期尿石症的管理:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr,&nbsp;Sona Tayebi,&nbsp;Nooriyeh DalirAkbari,&nbsp;Amir Ghabousian,&nbsp;Fateme Tahmasbi,&nbsp;Fatemeh Rahmati,&nbsp;Amirreza Naseri,&nbsp;Reyhaneh Hajebrahimi,&nbsp;Robab Mehdipour,&nbsp;Mahdi Hemmati-Ghavshough,&nbsp;Ali Mostafaei,&nbsp;Sakineh Hajebrahimi","doi":"10.1177/14574969221145774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Management of nephrolithiasis is unique in pregnancy and requires multidisciplinary care. To identify the effectiveness or safety of temporary drainage or definitive treatment methods to manage urolithiasis in pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies was conducted in August 2021. Studies published in any language on any date were considered for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 3349 publications, 36 studies were included in our qualitative evaluation and 32 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The commonly reported method was stent insertion (<i>n</i> = 29 studies), pneumatic (<i>n</i> = 12), laser (<i>n</i> = 9) lithotripsy, and stone removal using any devices (basket, grasper, or forceps) (<i>n</i> = 11). In seven studies, the authors reported the outcomes of conservative management, and the results showed that the stone-free rate is 54%, and symptom relief occurred in 62% of women. Seven eligible studies reported that 79.9% of urolithiasis were expulsed through stent insertion, while this rate was 94.6% among percutaneous nephrostomy use in two included studies, 88.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy (<i>n</i> = 7 studies), and 76.4% for laser lithotripsy (<i>n</i> = 4 studies), or 95.4% for stone removal method. In addition, adverse events were reported in less than 10% of pregnant women.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results showed that stent, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, and ureteroscopic stone removal were the commonest used methods in the included studies. They can be effective and safe treatment approaches without major maternal or neonatal complications, and could be introduced as an effective and safe therapeutic method for urolithiasis during pregnancy. However, most of the included studies had moderate quality according to critical appraisal checklists. Further prospective studies are needed to reach a conclusion.</p>","PeriodicalId":49566,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","volume":"112 2","pages":"105-116"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management of urolithiasis in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hanieh Salehi-Pourmehr,&nbsp;Sona Tayebi,&nbsp;Nooriyeh DalirAkbari,&nbsp;Amir Ghabousian,&nbsp;Fateme Tahmasbi,&nbsp;Fatemeh Rahmati,&nbsp;Amirreza Naseri,&nbsp;Reyhaneh Hajebrahimi,&nbsp;Robab Mehdipour,&nbsp;Mahdi Hemmati-Ghavshough,&nbsp;Ali Mostafaei,&nbsp;Sakineh Hajebrahimi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14574969221145774\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Management of nephrolithiasis is unique in pregnancy and requires multidisciplinary care. To identify the effectiveness or safety of temporary drainage or definitive treatment methods to manage urolithiasis in pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies was conducted in August 2021. Studies published in any language on any date were considered for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 3349 publications, 36 studies were included in our qualitative evaluation and 32 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The commonly reported method was stent insertion (<i>n</i> = 29 studies), pneumatic (<i>n</i> = 12), laser (<i>n</i> = 9) lithotripsy, and stone removal using any devices (basket, grasper, or forceps) (<i>n</i> = 11). In seven studies, the authors reported the outcomes of conservative management, and the results showed that the stone-free rate is 54%, and symptom relief occurred in 62% of women. Seven eligible studies reported that 79.9% of urolithiasis were expulsed through stent insertion, while this rate was 94.6% among percutaneous nephrostomy use in two included studies, 88.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy (<i>n</i> = 7 studies), and 76.4% for laser lithotripsy (<i>n</i> = 4 studies), or 95.4% for stone removal method. In addition, adverse events were reported in less than 10% of pregnant women.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results showed that stent, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, and ureteroscopic stone removal were the commonest used methods in the included studies. They can be effective and safe treatment approaches without major maternal or neonatal complications, and could be introduced as an effective and safe therapeutic method for urolithiasis during pregnancy. However, most of the included studies had moderate quality according to critical appraisal checklists. Further prospective studies are needed to reach a conclusion.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"112 2\",\"pages\":\"105-116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969221145774\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14574969221145774","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:肾结石的管理是独特的妊娠,需要多学科的护理。目的:探讨妊娠期尿石症临时引流或最终治疗方法的有效性和安全性。方法:检索策略旨在查找已发表和未发表的研究于2021年8月进行。在任何日期以任何语言发表的研究都被纳入考虑。结果:在总共3349篇文献中,我们的定性评价纳入了36篇,定量综合纳入了32篇。通常报道的方法是支架置入(n = 29),气压(n = 12),激光(n = 9)碎石,以及使用任何设备(篮子,抓握器或镊子)取出结石(n = 11)。在7项研究中,作者报告了保守治疗的结果,结果显示结石无结石率为54%,62%的女性出现症状缓解。7项符合条件的研究报告,79.9%的尿石症通过支架置入排出,其中两项纳入的研究中,经皮肾造口术的比例为94.6%,气动碎石术的比例为88.5% (n = 7项研究),激光碎石术的比例为76.4% (n = 4项研究),取石法的比例为95.4%。此外,不到10%的孕妇报告了不良事件。结论:结果显示,支架、气压或激光碎石、输尿管镜下取石是纳入研究中最常用的方法。它们是一种有效且安全的治疗方法,没有严重的孕产妇或新生儿并发症,可以作为妊娠期尿石症的一种有效且安全的治疗方法。然而,根据关键的评估清单,大多数纳入的研究质量中等。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来得出结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Management of urolithiasis in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: Management of nephrolithiasis is unique in pregnancy and requires multidisciplinary care. To identify the effectiveness or safety of temporary drainage or definitive treatment methods to manage urolithiasis in pregnancy.

Methods: The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies was conducted in August 2021. Studies published in any language on any date were considered for inclusion.

Results: Of a total of 3349 publications, 36 studies were included in our qualitative evaluation and 32 studies in the quantitative synthesis. The commonly reported method was stent insertion (n = 29 studies), pneumatic (n = 12), laser (n = 9) lithotripsy, and stone removal using any devices (basket, grasper, or forceps) (n = 11). In seven studies, the authors reported the outcomes of conservative management, and the results showed that the stone-free rate is 54%, and symptom relief occurred in 62% of women. Seven eligible studies reported that 79.9% of urolithiasis were expulsed through stent insertion, while this rate was 94.6% among percutaneous nephrostomy use in two included studies, 88.5% for pneumatic lithotripsy (n = 7 studies), and 76.4% for laser lithotripsy (n = 4 studies), or 95.4% for stone removal method. In addition, adverse events were reported in less than 10% of pregnant women.

Conclusions: The results showed that stent, pneumatic or laser lithotripsy, and ureteroscopic stone removal were the commonest used methods in the included studies. They can be effective and safe treatment approaches without major maternal or neonatal complications, and could be introduced as an effective and safe therapeutic method for urolithiasis during pregnancy. However, most of the included studies had moderate quality according to critical appraisal checklists. Further prospective studies are needed to reach a conclusion.

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
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
4.20%
发文量
37
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Surgery (SJS) is the official peer reviewed journal of the Finnish Surgical Society and the Scandinavian Surgical Society. It publishes original and review articles from all surgical fields and specialties to reflect the interests of our diverse and international readership that consists of surgeons from all specialties and continents.
期刊最新文献
A randomized double-blind noninferiority clinical multicenter trial on oral moxifloxacin versus placebo in the outpatient treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: APPAC IV study protocol. Modern surgical treatments for lymphedema. Impact of oral administration of calcitriol to prevent symptomatic hypocalcemia after total thyroidectomy: Systematic review and meta-analysis. 16-year outcomes of blunt thoracic aortic injury treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A single-institution experience. Reducing the risk of cancer with bariatric surgery: The need for evidence to guide practice.
×
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