0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy vs. flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of urinary calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones.

          Methods

          We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis.

          Results

          Seventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29–3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85–1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02–0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11–0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): −1.96, 95% CI: −1.55 to −0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51–18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85–1.42, p < 0.00001).

          Conclusion

          For 1–2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Surg
                Front Surg
                Front. Surg.
                Frontiers in Surgery
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-875X
                07 November 2022
                2022
                : 9
                : 925481
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Department of Urology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University , Jinan, China
                [ 2 ]Department of Urology, The People’s Hospital of Xin Tai City , Xintai, China
                [ 3 ]Department of Nursing, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University , Jinan, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Giovanni Scala Marchini, University of São Paulo, Brazil

                Reviewed by: Achim Loske, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Méxcio, Mexico Andrey O. Morozov, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia

                [* ] Correspondence: Dongqing Zhang zhang68dq@ 123456163.com
                [ † ]

                These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

                Specialty Section: This article was submitted to Genitourinary Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                Article
                10.3389/fsurg.2022.925481
                9676362
                36420414
                40440206-5f2f-4a99-93b0-e0756f881243
                © 2022 Lv, Qi, Gao, Zhou, Zhong, Wang, Liu, Zhang, Zhou, Li, Zhang and Zhang.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 21 April 2022
                : 10 October 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 12, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 41, Pages: 0, Words: 0
                Categories
                Surgery
                Systematic Review

                extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy,flexible ureteroscopy (f-urs),urinary calculi,systematic review,meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article