Objective To assess the necessity and safety of ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic lithotripsy in treatment of middle and distal ureteral calculi. Methods We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP and CNKI to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving men with or without ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic lithotripsy from 2000 to March 2010. The quality of included trials was assessed. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan5.0 software. Results Six RCTs involving 543 patients were identified. The results of meta-analysis showed that: a) There was no statistical difference between two groups in stone clearance rate (RR=0.45, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01, P=0.15), dysuria rate (RR=1.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.84, P=0.06), and hematuria rate (RR=2.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.49, P=0.05); b) There was statistical difference between two groups in frequent micturition rate (RR=2.17, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.17, P=0.02), the mean visual analog score 3 days postoperatively (WMD=0.94, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.42, P=0.000?1), and the operation time (WMD=3.57, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.72, P=0.001). Without postoperative ureteral stenting can shorten the operation time, decrease the irritation signs of bladder, and can improve quality of postoperative life without influence on stone clearance. Couclusions The routine ureteral stenting after ureteroscopic lithotripsy may be not necessary in order to keep patients from unsafety. More reasonable randomized double blind controlled trails with large sample are required to provide proofs with high quality because the methodology quality of included studies is lower.
ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) in the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones>1 cm. MethodsWe electronically searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, WanFang, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP database (by the end of July 2015) to collect randomized controlled trials involving PCNL vs. URL for the treatment of impacted proximal ureteral stones> 1 cm. The quality of those trials were assessed. Data were extracted and analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. ResultsSix randomized controlled trials were finally obtained after screening. A total of 487 patients were included for a Meta-analysis. The results showed that, as compared with the control group (URL), the patients in the trial group (PCNL) had the following features: ① There was a remarkable improvement of stone clearance rate [RR=1.20, 95% CI (1.09, 1.33), P=0.000 3].② There was no statistical difference in postoperative fever rates, urinary tract perforation rates [RR=1.73, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.45; RR=1.02, 95%CI (0.11, 9.37), P=0.99], but the incidence of hematuria was higher [RR=1.99, 95%CI (1.09, 3.62), P=0.03], and the mean operative duration was longer [WMD=30.03 minutes, 95%CI (10.04, 50.02) minuntes, P=0.003].③ The mean hospitalization stay was delayed by an average of 3.73 days [WMD=3.73 days, 95%CI (3.02, 4.44) days, P<0.000 01]. ConclusionPCNL is better than URL in the stone clearance rate, while patients in the PCNL group have to stay in the hospital much longer, and should bear longer mean operative duration.