Percutaneous nephrostomy versus ureteral stent in hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Obstructive urolithiasis Percutaneous nephrostomy Quality of life Ureteral stent Urinary symptoms

Journal

Asian journal of urology
ISSN: 2214-3882
Titre abrégé: Asian J Urol
Pays: Singapore
ID NLM: 101699720

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2024
Historique:
received: 25 03 2022
accepted: 13 03 2023
medline: 29 4 2024
pubmed: 29 4 2024
entrez: 29 4 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To assess if there is a preferable intervention between retrograde ureteral stent (RUS) and percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) tube, in cases of upper urinary tract stone obstruction with complications requiring urgent drainage, by evaluating outcomes regarding urinary symptoms, quality of life (QoL), spontaneous stone passage, and length of hospital stays, since there is no literature stating the superiority of one modality over the other. We searched MEDLINE and other sources for relevant articles in June 2019 without any date restrictions or filters applied. The selection was done first by the title and abstract screening and then by full-text assessment for eligibility. Only randomized controlled trials or cohort studies in patients with hydronephrosis secondary to obstructive urolithiasis that presented comparative data between PCN and RUS placement concerning at least one of the defined outcome measures were included. Lastly, MEDLINE database and PubMed platform were screened again using the same terms, from June 2019 until November 2022. Of 556 initial articles, seven were included in this review. Most works were considered of moderate-to-high quality. Three studies regarding QoL showed a tendency against stenting, even though only one demonstrated statistically significant negative impact on overall health state. Two works reported significantly more post-intervention urinary symptoms in stenting patients. One article found that PCN is a significant predictor of spontaneous stone passage, when adjusted for stone size and location. Findings on length of hospital stays were not consistent among articles. PCN appears to be the intervention better tolerated, with less impact on the patient's perceived QoL and less post-operative urinary symptoms, in comparison with RUS. Nevertheless, further studies with larger samples and a randomized controlled design are suggested.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38680594
doi: 10.1016/j.ajur.2023.03.007
pii: S2214-3882(23)00143-1
pmc: PMC11053331
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Pagination

261-270

Informations de copyright

© 2024 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Auteurs

Andreia Cardoso (A)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Aparício Coutinho (A)

School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Gonçalo Neto (G)

School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Sara Anacleto (S)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Catarina Laranjo Tinoco (CL)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Nuno Morais (N)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Mário Cerqueira-Alves (M)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Estevão Lima (E)

School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Association (2CA-Braga). School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Paulo Mota (P)

Department of Urology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.
School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.
Association (2CA-Braga). School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.

Classifications MeSH