Natural History of Post-Treatment Kidney Stone Fragments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.


Journal

The Journal of urology
ISSN: 1527-3792
Titre abrégé: J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376374

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed: 28 4 2021
medline: 31 8 2021
entrez: 27 4 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We assessed the literature around post-treatment asymptomatic residual stone fragments and performed a meta-analysis. The main outcomes were intervention rate and disease progression. We searched Ovid®, MEDLINE®, Embase™, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov using search terms: "asymptomatic", "nephrolithiasis", "ESWL", "PCNL", "URS" and "intervention." Inclusion criteria were all studies with residual renal fragments following treatment (shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy). Analysis was performed using 'metafor' in R and bias determined using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. From 273 articles, 18 papers (2,096 patients) had details of intervention rate for residual fragments. Aggregate intervention rates for ≤4 mm fragments rose from 19% (20 months) to 22% (50 months), while >4 mm fragments rose from 22% to 47%. Aggregate disease progression rates for ≤4 mm rose from 25% to 47% and >4 mm rose from 26% to 88%. However, there was substantial difference in definition of "disease progression." Meta-analysis comparing >4 mm against ≤4 mm fragments: intervention rate for >4 mm (vs ≤4 mm): OR=1.50 (95% CI 0.70-2.30), p <0.001, I Larger post-treatment residual fragments are significantly more likely to require further intervention especially in the long term. Smaller fragments, although less likely to require further intervention, still carry that risk. Notably, there is no significant difference in disease progression between fragment sizes. Patients with residual fragments should be appropriately counselled and informed decision-making regarding further management should be done.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33904756
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001836
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

526-538

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Eleanor Brain (E)

Newcastle Medical School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

Robert M Geraghty (RM)

Department of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.
Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, International Centre for Life, Newcastle upon Tyne, England.

Catherine E Lovegrove (CE)

Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, England.
Nuffield Department of Surgery, Oxford University, Oxford, England.

Bingyuan Yang (B)

Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, England.

Bhaskar K Somani (BK)

Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, England.

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