Author:
Sharma Gopal,Pareek Tarun,Tyagi Shantanu,Kaundal Pawan,Yadav Anuj Kumar,Thummala Yashasvi,Devana Sudheer Kumar
Abstract
AbstractTo compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from “very low” to “moderate” for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Türk, C., Neisius, A., Petřík, A., Seitz, C., Thomas, K. & Skolarikos, A. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis 2020. European Association of Urology Guidelines. 2020 Edition. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2020. The European Association of Urology Guidelines Office; 2020.
2. Shim S, Yoon BH, Shin IS, Bae JM. Network meta-analysis: application and practice using Stata. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017047.
3. Hutton, B. et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 162, 777–784 (2015).
4. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 16. StataCorp LLC (2019).
5. White, I. R., Barrett, J. K., Jackson, D. & Higgins, J. P. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta-regression. Res. Synth. Methods 3, 111–125 (2012).
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献