尿改道患者肠梗阻发生率:一项荟萃分析研究。

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Urology Annals Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_32_21
Gerhard Reinaldi Situmorang, Gampo Alam Irdam, Aaron Abdullah
{"title":"尿改道患者肠梗阻发生率:一项荟萃分析研究。","authors":"Gerhard Reinaldi Situmorang,&nbsp;Gampo Alam Irdam,&nbsp;Aaron Abdullah","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_32_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel obstruction is a common complication that occurs in patient who underwent urinary diversion with an incidence of 0.7%-11%. Although previous studies have published risk factors, prevention and management of postoperative paralytic ileus, and data on urinary postdiversion bowel obstruction in the literature are still scarce and thus require further investigation of the diversion technique which allegedly has differences in pathogenesis, management, and results. To that end, this study conducted a systematic review study to compare two different diversion techniques, namely ileal conduit and continent diversion, especially orthotopic neobladder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review by searching study in online databases such as PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest. Inclusion criteria included are full-text articles, English language, and articles of the past 10 years. After searching, we analyzed quantitatively using the RevMan application for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 3403 studies, we got 12 studies that were included in the analysis. In a study conducted from the study of van Hemelrijck <i>et al</i>. stated that intestinal obstruction has an incidence of 50.73-1000, the third-highest when compared with advanced complications such as death (145.07/1000 population) and urinary tract infections (127.03/1000 population). It was found that odds ratio was 0.64 (0.45-0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder methods have no significant difference in the incidence of intestinal obstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"14 4","pages":"359-364"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/29/b2/UA-14-359.PMC9731191.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bowel obstruction incidence in urinary diversion patients: A meta-analysis study.\",\"authors\":\"Gerhard Reinaldi Situmorang,&nbsp;Gampo Alam Irdam,&nbsp;Aaron Abdullah\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ua.ua_32_21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel obstruction is a common complication that occurs in patient who underwent urinary diversion with an incidence of 0.7%-11%. Although previous studies have published risk factors, prevention and management of postoperative paralytic ileus, and data on urinary postdiversion bowel obstruction in the literature are still scarce and thus require further investigation of the diversion technique which allegedly has differences in pathogenesis, management, and results. To that end, this study conducted a systematic review study to compare two different diversion techniques, namely ileal conduit and continent diversion, especially orthotopic neobladder.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study is a systematic review by searching study in online databases such as PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest. Inclusion criteria included are full-text articles, English language, and articles of the past 10 years. After searching, we analyzed quantitatively using the RevMan application for meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 3403 studies, we got 12 studies that were included in the analysis. In a study conducted from the study of van Hemelrijck <i>et al</i>. stated that intestinal obstruction has an incidence of 50.73-1000, the third-highest when compared with advanced complications such as death (145.07/1000 population) and urinary tract infections (127.03/1000 population). It was found that odds ratio was 0.64 (0.45-0.91).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder methods have no significant difference in the incidence of intestinal obstruction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Annals\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"359-364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/29/b2/UA-14-359.PMC9731191.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_32_21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_32_21","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: 0

摘要

背景:肠梗阻是尿改道患者常见的并发症,发生率为0.7%-11%。虽然已有文献报道了麻痹性肠梗阻的危险因素、预防和处理,以及尿改道后肠梗阻的相关资料,但仍缺乏文献资料,因此需要对改道技术进行进一步的研究,而改道技术在发病机制、处理和结果上都存在差异。为此,本研究进行了系统的综述研究,比较了两种不同的转移技术,即回肠导管和大陆转移,特别是原位新膀胱。方法:本研究通过PubMed、EBSCOhost、ProQuest等在线数据库的检索,采用系统综述的方法进行研究。收录标准包括全文文章、英文文章和过去10年的文章。检索后,我们使用RevMan应用程序进行meta分析。结果:从3403项研究中,我们得到12项研究纳入分析。van Hemelrijck等人的研究表明,肠梗阻的发生率为50.73-1000,与死亡(145.07/1000)和尿路感染(127.03/1000)等晚期并发症相比,肠梗阻的发生率为第三高。比值比为0.64(0.45 ~ 0.91)。结论:回肠导管法与原位新膀胱法在肠梗阻发生率上无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Bowel obstruction incidence in urinary diversion patients: A meta-analysis study.

Background: Bowel obstruction is a common complication that occurs in patient who underwent urinary diversion with an incidence of 0.7%-11%. Although previous studies have published risk factors, prevention and management of postoperative paralytic ileus, and data on urinary postdiversion bowel obstruction in the literature are still scarce and thus require further investigation of the diversion technique which allegedly has differences in pathogenesis, management, and results. To that end, this study conducted a systematic review study to compare two different diversion techniques, namely ileal conduit and continent diversion, especially orthotopic neobladder.

Methods: This study is a systematic review by searching study in online databases such as PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest. Inclusion criteria included are full-text articles, English language, and articles of the past 10 years. After searching, we analyzed quantitatively using the RevMan application for meta-analysis.

Results: From 3403 studies, we got 12 studies that were included in the analysis. In a study conducted from the study of van Hemelrijck et al. stated that intestinal obstruction has an incidence of 50.73-1000, the third-highest when compared with advanced complications such as death (145.07/1000 population) and urinary tract infections (127.03/1000 population). It was found that odds ratio was 0.64 (0.45-0.91).

Conclusion: The ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder methods have no significant difference in the incidence of intestinal obstruction.

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
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
期刊最新文献
Management of nephrolithiasis in the Middle East over a recent decade: A systematic review. Prevalence of nocturnal enuresis among children of Aseer region in Saudi Arabia. Shock wave lithotripsy in the era of COVID-19. The Saudi urological association guidelines on urolithiasis. Thermoexpandable Memokath stent: Usage and efficacy in ureteral and urethral strictures in Saudi Arabia.
×
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