Cargando…

The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systemat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luo, Zhenkai, Jiao, Binbin, Zhao, Hang, Huang, Tao, Geng, Lin, Zhang, Guan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/4081409
_version_ 1783599686582534144
author Luo, Zhenkai
Jiao, Binbin
Zhao, Hang
Huang, Tao
Geng, Lin
Zhang, Guan
author_facet Luo, Zhenkai
Jiao, Binbin
Zhao, Hang
Huang, Tao
Geng, Lin
Zhang, Guan
author_sort Luo, Zhenkai
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P < 0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P < 0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P = 0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P = 0.97), or other complications (P > 0.05) were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7584935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75849352020-10-28 The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better? Luo, Zhenkai Jiao, Binbin Zhao, Hang Huang, Tao Geng, Lin Zhang, Guan Biomed Res Int Review Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of ureteric stent removal using strings compared to conventional methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched up to March 2020. Two reviewers searched the literature, independently extracted the data, and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data analysis was performed with the software program Review Manager 5.3. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 1809 patients were included in the analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Our meta-analysis showed that visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were significantly lower in the string group than in the conventional group (weighted mean difference (WMD) -2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.68, -1.58; P < 0.00001). In terms of stent dwell time, the string group had an advantage (WMD -9.53; 95% CI -14.20, -4.86; P < 0.0001). In addition, no significant differences in the occurrence of urinary tract infection (UTI) (odds ratio (OR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.62, 1.72; P = 0.92), emergency room visits (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.59, 1.67; P = 0.97), or other complications (P > 0.05) were observed between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that an extraction string is an effective and safe method for the removal of ureteric stents. This method gives patients the benefits of reduced pain and shortened stent dwell time without increasing the risk of UTI. Nevertheless, these findings should be further confirmed through large-volume, well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Hindawi 2020-10-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7584935/ /pubmed/33123574 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/4081409 Text en Copyright © 2020 Zhenkai Luo et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Luo, Zhenkai
Jiao, Binbin
Zhao, Hang
Huang, Tao
Geng, Lin
Zhang, Guan
The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title_full The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title_fullStr The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title_full_unstemmed The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title_short The Efficacy and Safety of Ureteric Stent Removal with Strings versus No Strings: Which Is Better?
title_sort efficacy and safety of ureteric stent removal with strings versus no strings: which is better?
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33123574
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/4081409
work_keys_str_mv AT luozhenkai theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT jiaobinbin theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT zhaohang theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT huangtao theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT genglin theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT zhangguan theefficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT luozhenkai efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT jiaobinbin efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT zhaohang efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT huangtao efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT genglin efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter
AT zhangguan efficacyandsafetyofuretericstentremovalwithstringsversusnostringswhichisbetter