Predictors of Ureteral Strictures after Retrograde Ureteroscopic Treatment of Impacted Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Literature Review.
impacted stone
stricture
ureteral perforation
ureteroscopy
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 May 2023
22 May 2023
Historique:
received:
03
05
2023
revised:
17
05
2023
accepted:
18
05
2023
medline:
27
5
2023
pubmed:
27
5
2023
entrez:
27
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The stricture-formation rate following ureteroscopy ranges from 0.5 to 5% and might amount to 24% in patients with impacted ureteral stones. The pathogenesis of ureteral stricture formation is not yet fully understood. It is likely that the patient and stone characteristics, as well as intervention factors, play a role in this process. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the potential factors responsible for ureteral stricture formation in patients having impacted ureteral stones. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria, we conducted systematic online research through PubMed and Web of Science without a time restriction, applying the keywords "ureteral stone", "ureteral calculus", "impacted stone", "ureteral stenosis", "ureteroscopic lithotripsy", "impacted calculus", and "ureteral strictures" singly or in combination. After eliminating non-eligible studies, we identified five articles on ureteral stricture formation following treatment of impacted ureteral stones. Ureteral perforation and/or mucosal damage appeared as key predictors of ureteral stricture following retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for impacted ureteral stones. Besides ureteral perforation stone size, embedded stone fragments into the ureter during lithotripsy, failed URS, degree of hydronephrosis, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent (DJS)/ureter catheter insertion were also suggested factors leading to ureteral strictures. Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The stricture-formation rate following ureteroscopy ranges from 0.5 to 5% and might amount to 24% in patients with impacted ureteral stones. The pathogenesis of ureteral stricture formation is not yet fully understood. It is likely that the patient and stone characteristics, as well as intervention factors, play a role in this process. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine the potential factors responsible for ureteral stricture formation in patients having impacted ureteral stones.
METHODS
METHODS
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) criteria, we conducted systematic online research through PubMed and Web of Science without a time restriction, applying the keywords "ureteral stone", "ureteral calculus", "impacted stone", "ureteral stenosis", "ureteroscopic lithotripsy", "impacted calculus", and "ureteral strictures" singly or in combination.
RESULTS
RESULTS
After eliminating non-eligible studies, we identified five articles on ureteral stricture formation following treatment of impacted ureteral stones. Ureteral perforation and/or mucosal damage appeared as key predictors of ureteral stricture following retrograde ureteroscopy (URS) for impacted ureteral stones. Besides ureteral perforation stone size, embedded stone fragments into the ureter during lithotripsy, failed URS, degree of hydronephrosis, nephrostomy tube or double-J stent (DJS)/ureter catheter insertion were also suggested factors leading to ureteral strictures.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Ureteral perforation during surgery might be considered the main risk factor for ureteral stricture formation following retrograde ureteroscopic stone removal for impacted ureteral stones.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37240709
pii: jcm12103603
doi: 10.3390/jcm12103603
pmc: PMC10218913
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
J Endourol. 2015 Aug;29(8):883-7
pubmed: 25578351
J Urol. 2001 Aug;166(2):538-40
pubmed: 11458062
Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Nov-Dec;9(11-12):E921-4
pubmed: 26788241
Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):518-22; discussion 522
pubmed: 12639636
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2014 Mar;30(3):153-8
pubmed: 24581216
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Dec 16;57(12):
pubmed: 34946314
Int Urol Nephrol. 2020 May;52(5):841-849
pubmed: 31925641
Urol Int. 2012;88(3):311-5
pubmed: 22441150
World J Urol. 2015 Nov;33(11):1841-5
pubmed: 25822707
Scand J Urol. 2021 Oct;55(5):394-398
pubmed: 34355993
Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2020 Jan.-Mar;18(69):49-53
pubmed: 33582688
Int Braz J Urol. 2006 May-Jun;32(3):295-9
pubmed: 16813672
Cent European J Urol. 2021;74(1):57-63
pubmed: 33976917
BJU Int. 2008 Sep;102(8):1010-7
pubmed: 18485033
Br J Urol. 1994 Aug;74(2):165-9
pubmed: 7921932
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Endourol. 2021 Jul;35(7):985-990
pubmed: 32962439
J Endourol. 2009 Feb;23(2):243-7
pubmed: 19220083
J Urol. 1990 Feb;143(2):263-6
pubmed: 1967657
PeerJ. 2017 Jun 30;5:e3483
pubmed: 28674654
J Urol. 1998 Mar;159(3):723-6
pubmed: 9474134
J Endourol. 2018 Apr;32(4):309-314
pubmed: 29325445
Korean J Urol. 2015 Jan;56(1):63-7
pubmed: 25598938
Int Urol Nephrol. 2011 Dec;43(4):989-95
pubmed: 21479563