Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.
<label>BACKGROUND AND AIM</label>Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2017-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5221881?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-fc1850c9e3774a818c333a4b4f1f349b |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-fc1850c9e3774a818c333a4b4f1f349b2020-11-25T00:13:21ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032017-01-01121e016767010.1371/journal.pone.0167670Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones.Hai WangLibo ManGuizhong LiGuanglin HuangNing LiuJianwei Wang<label>BACKGROUND AND AIM</label>Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of ureteral stents for the treatment of ureteral stones.<label>METHODS</label>Databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were selected for systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with or without stenting during URL and ESWL. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 software.<label>RESULTS</label>We identified 22 RCTs comparing stenting and non-stenting. The stented group was associated with longer operation time (WMD: 4.93; 95% CI: 2.07 to 7.84; p < 0.001), lower stone-free rate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.01). In terms of complications, the incidence of hematuria (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.86 to 7.29; p < 0.001), irritative urinary symptoms (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.19 to 9.10; p < 0.001), urinary infection (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.19; p < 0.001), and dysuria (OR: 3.90; 95% CI: 2.51 to 6.07; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the stented group. No significant differences in visual analogue score (VAS), stricture formation, fever, or hospital stay were found between stenting and non-stenting groups. The risk of unplanned readmissions (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.97; p = 0.04) was higher in the non-stented group.<label>CONCLUSIONS</label>Our analysis showed that stenting failed to improve the stone-free rate, and instead, it resulted in additional complications. However, ureteral stents are valuable in preventing unplanned re-hospitalization. Additional randomized controlled trials are still required to corroborate our findings.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5221881?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Hai Wang Libo Man Guizhong Li Guanglin Huang Ning Liu Jianwei Wang |
spellingShingle |
Hai Wang Libo Man Guizhong Li Guanglin Huang Ning Liu Jianwei Wang Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Hai Wang Libo Man Guizhong Li Guanglin Huang Ning Liu Jianwei Wang |
author_sort |
Hai Wang |
title |
Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. |
title_short |
Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. |
title_full |
Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. |
title_fullStr |
Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Meta-Analysis of Stenting versus Non-Stenting for the Treatment of Ureteral Stones. |
title_sort |
meta-analysis of stenting versus non-stenting for the treatment of ureteral stones. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2017-01-01 |
description |
<label>BACKGROUND AND AIM</label>Ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are two widely used methods for the treatment of ureteral stones. The need for ureteral stenting during these procedures is controversial. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the benefits and disadvantages of ureteral stents for the treatment of ureteral stones.<label>METHODS</label>Databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library were selected for systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes with or without stenting during URL and ESWL. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and STATA 13.0 software.<label>RESULTS</label>We identified 22 RCTs comparing stenting and non-stenting. The stented group was associated with longer operation time (WMD: 4.93; 95% CI: 2.07 to 7.84; p < 0.001), lower stone-free rate (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.89; p = 0.01). In terms of complications, the incidence of hematuria (OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.86 to 7.29; p < 0.001), irritative urinary symptoms (OR: 4.40; 95% CI: 2.19 to 9.10; p < 0.001), urinary infection (OR: 2.23; 95% CI: 1.57 to 3.19; p < 0.001), and dysuria (OR: 3.90; 95% CI: 2.51 to 6.07; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the stented group. No significant differences in visual analogue score (VAS), stricture formation, fever, or hospital stay were found between stenting and non-stenting groups. The risk of unplanned readmissions (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.97; p = 0.04) was higher in the non-stented group.<label>CONCLUSIONS</label>Our analysis showed that stenting failed to improve the stone-free rate, and instead, it resulted in additional complications. However, ureteral stents are valuable in preventing unplanned re-hospitalization. Additional randomized controlled trials are still required to corroborate our findings. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5221881?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT haiwang metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones AT liboman metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones AT guizhongli metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones AT guanglinhuang metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones AT ningliu metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones AT jianweiwang metaanalysisofstentingversusnonstentingforthetreatmentofureteralstones |
_version_ |
1725394775631200256 |