Affiliation:
1. Department of Urology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, China
2. Department of Scientific Research, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, China
3. Department of Urology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong 264000, China
4. Department of Urology, Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, Qingdao University, No. 20 East Yuhuangding Road, Yantai, Shandong 264000, China
Abstract
Background: The debate regarding the optimal drainage method for acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection persists, focusing on the choice between percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS). Aims: This study aims to systematically examine the perioperative outcomes and safety associated with PCN and RUS in treating acute obstructive upper urinary tract infections. Methods: A comprehensive investigation was conducted using the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to December 2022, following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The utilized keywords included ‘PCN’, ‘RUS’, ‘acute upper obstructive uropathy’, and ‘RCT’. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies providing accurate and analyzable data, which incorporated the total subject count, perioperative outcomes, and complication rates. The assessed perioperative outcomes included fluoroscopy time, normalization of temperature, normalization of serum creatinine, normalization of white blood cell (WBC) count, and operative time. Safety outcomes encompassed failure rate, intraoperative and postoperative hematuria, postoperative fever, postoperative pain, and postoperative nephrostomy tube or stent slippage rate. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022352474). Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 7 trials involving 727 patients, with 412 assigned to the PCN group and 315 to the RUS group. The outcome of the meta-analysis unveiled a reduced occurrence of postoperative hematuria in the PCN group [odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30–0.99, p = 0.04], along with a decreased frequency of insertion failure (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21–0.81, p = 0.01). In addition, the RUS group exhibited a shorter fluoroscopy time than the PCN group (mean difference = 0.31, 95% CI 0.14–0.48, p = 0.0004). Conclusion: Given the significant impact of hematuria and catheterization failure on postoperative quality of life, the preference for PCN appears more advantageous than RUS.