Suction use in ureterorenoscopy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies

Author:

Tzelves Lazaros12ORCID,Geraghty Robert34ORCID,Juliebø‐Jones Patrick256ORCID,Yuan Yuhong78,Kapriniotis Konstantinos9,Castellani Daniele10ORCID,Gauhar Vineet11,Skolarikos Andreas1,Somani Bhaskar12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Second Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Athens Greece

2. Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Urolithiasis Group European Association of Urology (EAU) Arnhem Netherlands

3. Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne UK

4. Institute of Genetic Medicine Newcastle University Newcastle‐upon‐Tyne UK

5. Department of Urology Haukeland University Hospital Bergen Norway

6. Department of Clinical Medicine University of Bergen Bergen Norway

7. Department of Medicine London Health Science Centre London Ontario Canada

8. Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre McMaster University Hamilton Ontario Canada

9. Department of Urology Whipps cross University Hospital London UK

10. Urology Division Azienda Ospedaliero‐Universitaria delle Marche Ancona Italy

11. Ng Teng Fong General Hospital (NUHS) Singapore

12. Department of Urology University of Southampton Southampton UK

Abstract

AbstractObjectivesUreterorenoscopy is seeing a bloom of technological advances, one of which is incorporating suction. The objective of this study is to systematically review existing literature regarding suction use in rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy and perform meta‐analysis of studies comparing suction versus no suction ureteroscopy or mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).MethodsA literature search was performed (November 2023) in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023482360). Comparative studies (observational and randomized) were eligible for inclusion if they compared suction versus no suction group and reported at least one primary outcome of interest (stone‐free or complication rate).ResultsSixteen studies (5 randomized and 11 observational), analysing 1086 and 1109 patients in standard and suction groups, respectively, were included. Final stone‐free rates (SFRs), overall and infectious complications and length of hospital stay exhibited significant improvement when suction was used. When mini‐PCNL was compared with flexible ureterorenoscopy with suction, no differences were found in terms of stone‐free and infectious complications rates.ConclusionsUreterorenoscopy is a commonly performed endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis treatment, the success of which is defined by SFRs and complication rates. Application of suction via ureteral access sheaths, ureteral catheters or scopes may provide improved SFRs, reduced overall and infectious complication rates, along with a reduction in length of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to validate these findings and standardize indications and protocols.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3