Surgical management of obstructing ureteral stones during pregnancy: A systematic review of different techniques.


Journal

Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica
ISSN: 2282-4197
Titre abrégé: Arch Ital Urol Androl
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 9308247

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Oct 2024
Historique:
received: 30 03 2024
accepted: 21 04 2024
medline: 2 10 2024
pubmed: 2 10 2024
entrez: 2 10 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Renal colic is the most common non-obstetric cause of abdominal pain during pregnancy and is associated with a higher risk of complications in these women. When invasive treatment is required, options are temporary drainage with ureteral stent (JJ) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN), or immediate definitive treatment with ureteroscopy (URS). Our goal was to review the safety and efficacy of these procedures in treating urolithiasis during pregnancy. Adhering to the PRISMA checklist guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for articles on the efficacy and complications of the three procedures in pregnant women. The quality of evidence and risk of bias were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and the Institute of Health Economics tools. We included 45 articles, totaling 3424 interventions in pregnant women - 2188 URS, 719 JJ, and 517 PCN. URS was the most assessed procedure, with stone-free rates comparable to the non-pregnant patients. The most frequent complications were lower urinary symptoms and infections independently of the intervention. Obstetric complications for all interventions included 167 cases of preterm labor, resulting in 24 premature births. No statistically significant differences in post-operative complications were reported between the procedures in the few comparative studies. Despite the absence of high-quality studies, current evidence suggests that URS, JJ, and PCN are all safe and effective during pregnancy. As most patients submitted to temporary drainage require a second procedure post-delivery, primary URS appears more efficient. Therefore, it is the preferred option unless there are indications for temporary drainage.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39356029
doi: 10.4081/aiua.2024.12153
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

12153

Auteurs

Catarina Laranjo Tinoco (C)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga. cat.tinoco@gmail.com.

Maria João Oliveira (MJ)

School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga. mariajboliveira3110@gmail.com.

Ana Sofia Araújo (AS)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga. anasofiaparaujo94@gmail.com.

Andreia Cardoso (A)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga. afds.cardoso@gmail.com.

Carlos Oliveira (C)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga; School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga. carlos.oliveira81@gmail.com.

Paulo Mota (P)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga; School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga. damota.paulo@gmail.com.

João Pimentel Torres (J)

Urology Department, Hospital de Braga; School of Medicine, University of Minho, Braga. joaonunobpt@gmail.com.

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