Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi.


Journal

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 02 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 7 2 2019
medline: 13 4 2019
entrez: 7 2 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Ureteroscopy combined with laser stone fragmentation and basketing is a common approach for managing renal and ureteral stones. This procedure is associated with some degree of ureteral trauma. Ureteral trauma may lead to swelling, ureteral obstruction, and flank pain and may require subsequent interventions such as hospital admission or secondary ureteral stent placement. To prevent such issues, urologists often place temporary ureteral stents prophylactically, but the value of doing so remains unclear. To assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy. We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 01 February 2019. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. We included trials in which researchers randomised participants undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopy to placement of a ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent. Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach. Primary outcomesStenting may slightly reduce the number of unplanned return visits (16 trials with 1970 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Pain on the day of surgery as measured on a visual analogue scale (scale 0 to 10; higher values reflect more pain) is probably similar (mean difference (MD) 0.32 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 lower to 0.78 higher; 4 trials with 346 participants; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1 to 3 may show little to no difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25 higher, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.82 higher; 8 trials with 683 participants; low CoE). On postoperative days 4 to 30, stented participants may experience more pain (8 trials with 903 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 10 studies with 1435 participants; low CoE); this corresponds to three more interventions per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 48 more).Secondary outcomesStenting may reduce the need for narcotics (7 trials with 830 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) up to 90 days are probably not substantially different (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.51; 10 trials with 1207 participants; moderate CoE); this corresponds to three fewer infections per 1000 participants (95% CI 23 fewer to 29 more).Ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days may be slightly reduced (14 trials with 1625 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.55; 13 studies with 1647 participants; low CoE). This corresponds to 15 fewer admissions per 1000 participants (95% CI 33 fewer to 27 more). Findings of this review illustrate the trade-offs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. We noted that both desirable and undesirable effects were small in absolute terms, with findings based mostly on low and very low CoE. The main issues reducing our confidence in research findings were study limitations (mostly risk of performance and detection bias) and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular those based on stone size, stone location, and use of ureteral dilation, which may be important effect modifiers. Given the importance of this question, higher-quality and sufficiently large trials are needed to better inform decision-making.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Ureteroscopy combined with laser stone fragmentation and basketing is a common approach for managing renal and ureteral stones. This procedure is associated with some degree of ureteral trauma. Ureteral trauma may lead to swelling, ureteral obstruction, and flank pain and may require subsequent interventions such as hospital admission or secondary ureteral stent placement. To prevent such issues, urologists often place temporary ureteral stents prophylactically, but the value of doing so remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 01 February 2019. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials in which researchers randomised participants undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopy to placement of a ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Primary outcomesStenting may slightly reduce the number of unplanned return visits (16 trials with 1970 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Pain on the day of surgery as measured on a visual analogue scale (scale 0 to 10; higher values reflect more pain) is probably similar (mean difference (MD) 0.32 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 lower to 0.78 higher; 4 trials with 346 participants; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1 to 3 may show little to no difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25 higher, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.82 higher; 8 trials with 683 participants; low CoE). On postoperative days 4 to 30, stented participants may experience more pain (8 trials with 903 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 10 studies with 1435 participants; low CoE); this corresponds to three more interventions per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 48 more).Secondary outcomesStenting may reduce the need for narcotics (7 trials with 830 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) up to 90 days are probably not substantially different (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.51; 10 trials with 1207 participants; moderate CoE); this corresponds to three fewer infections per 1000 participants (95% CI 23 fewer to 29 more).Ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days may be slightly reduced (14 trials with 1625 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.55; 13 studies with 1647 participants; low CoE). This corresponds to 15 fewer admissions per 1000 participants (95% CI 33 fewer to 27 more).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this review illustrate the trade-offs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. We noted that both desirable and undesirable effects were small in absolute terms, with findings based mostly on low and very low CoE. The main issues reducing our confidence in research findings were study limitations (mostly risk of performance and detection bias) and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular those based on stone size, stone location, and use of ureteral dilation, which may be important effect modifiers. Given the importance of this question, higher-quality and sufficiently large trials are needed to better inform decision-making.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30726554
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012703.pub2
pmc: PMC6365118
doi:

Substances chimiques

Analgesics, Opioid 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

CD012703

Références

Urol Int. 2017;98(4):391-396
pubmed: 27694759
Urology. 2008 Feb;71(2):209-13
pubmed: 18308085
J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1651-7
pubmed: 11586195
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 05;4:CD008509
pubmed: 29620795
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1065-9; discussion 1069
pubmed: 12576847
Urol Res. 2009 Apr;37(2):83-8
pubmed: 19183976
BJU Int. 2004 May;93(7):1032-4; discussion 1034-5
pubmed: 15142158
J Urol. 2008 Feb;179(2):424-30
pubmed: 18076928
Urology. 2011 Dec;78(6):1248-56
pubmed: 21762964
J Endourol. 2007 Sep;21(9):993-7
pubmed: 17941774
J Endourol. 2010 Aug;24(8):1263-7
pubmed: 20615145
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
J Urol. 2003 Apr;169(4):1257-60
pubmed: 12629338
BJU Int. 2012 Apr;109(7):1082-7
pubmed: 21883851
Saudi Med J. 2009 Oct;30(10):1276-80
pubmed: 19838433
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Oct 19;(4):CD004925
pubmed: 16235385
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000100
pubmed: 19621070
Saudi Med J. 2006 Jun;27(6):845-8
pubmed: 16758048
Hong Kong Med J. 2015 Apr;21(2):124-30
pubmed: 25756274
Urol Res. 2008 May;36(2):115-9
pubmed: 18385992
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2006 Jun;78(2):53-6
pubmed: 16929603
J Endourol. 2002 Feb;16(1):9-13
pubmed: 11890453
J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):580-4
pubmed: 22982421
Curr Urol Rep. 2018 Apr 10;19(5):35
pubmed: 29637309
Minim Invasive Surg. 2014;2014:892890
pubmed: 25431663
J Urol. 2005 Jun;173(6):2022
pubmed: 15879810
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 06;2:CD012703
pubmed: 30726554
Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):475-82
pubmed: 26344917
J Urol. 2001 May;165(5):1419-22
pubmed: 11342889
World J Urol. 2013 Dec;31(6):1617-25
pubmed: 23462959
BMJ. 2007 Mar 17;334(7593):572
pubmed: 17311851
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):1977-80
pubmed: 11956421
Andrologia. 2017 Nov;49(9):
pubmed: 27882592
Urol Res. 2008 Oct;36(5):259-63
pubmed: 18797859
J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):961-5
pubmed: 18639269
J Endourol. 2017 May;31(5):446-451
pubmed: 28292209
BJU Int. 2018 Dec;122(6):924-931
pubmed: 29993174
J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1904-9
pubmed: 21944085
Urology. 2018 Jul;117:44-49
pubmed: 29601836
Int J Urol. 2006 Jul;13(7):886-90
pubmed: 16882049
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 9;12(1):e0167670
pubmed: 28068364
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):160-5
pubmed: 22498635
J Urol. 2001 Oct;166(4):1252-4
pubmed: 11547052
Eur Urol. 2004 Sep;46(3):381-7; discussion 387-8
pubmed: 15306112
J Endourol. 2012 Nov;26(11):1425-30
pubmed: 22698147
Urology. 2008 May;71(5):796-800
pubmed: 18342924
J Urol. 2016 Oct;196(4):1161-9
pubmed: 27238615
World J Urol. 2011 Dec;29(6):731-6
pubmed: 21590466
J Endourol. 2003 Dec;17(10):871-4
pubmed: 14744352
J Urol. 2016 Nov;196(5):1458-1466
pubmed: 27287523
BMJ. 2008 May 3;336(7651):995-8
pubmed: 18456631
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
BMJ. 2016 Dec 1;355:i6112
pubmed: 27908918
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120

Auteurs

Maria Ordonez (M)

Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH