Cargando…
Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis
To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 ran...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175352/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34083725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91364-3 |
_version_ | 1783703037617897472 |
---|---|
author | Sharma, Gopal Pareek, Tarun Tyagi, Shantanu Kaundal, Pawan Yadav, Anuj Kumar Thummala, Yashasvi Devana, Sudheer Kumar |
author_facet | Sharma, Gopal Pareek, Tarun Tyagi, Shantanu Kaundal, Pawan Yadav, Anuj Kumar Thummala, Yashasvi Devana, Sudheer Kumar |
author_sort | Sharma, Gopal |
collection | PubMed |
description | To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from “very low” to “moderate” for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8175352 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81753522021-06-04 Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis Sharma, Gopal Pareek, Tarun Tyagi, Shantanu Kaundal, Pawan Yadav, Anuj Kumar Thummala, Yashasvi Devana, Sudheer Kumar Sci Rep Article To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from “very low” to “moderate” for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8175352/ /pubmed/34083725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91364-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Sharma, Gopal Pareek, Tarun Tyagi, Shantanu Kaundal, Pawan Yadav, Anuj Kumar Thummala, Yashasvi Devana, Sudheer Kumar Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title | Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full | Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_short | Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8175352/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34083725 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91364-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sharmagopal comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT pareektarun comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT tyagishantanu comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT kaundalpawan comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT yadavanujkumar comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT thummalayashasvi comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis AT devanasudheerkumar comparisonofefficacyandsafetyofvariousmanagementoptionsforlargeupperuretericstonesasystematicreviewandnetworkmetaanalysis |