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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Hai Wang, Libo Man, Guizhong Li, Guanglin Huang, Ning Liu, Jianwei Wang
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