Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4):1328-35. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.05.073.
This systematic review was performed to assess the necessity and complications of stenting before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary stones.
A systematic research of PubMed®, EMBASE® and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials. The comparisons were about the outcomes and complications of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the management of upper urinary stones with or without Double-J stenting before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, including stone-free rate, Steinstrasse, lower urinary tract symptoms, hematuria, fever, urinary tract infection, pain and analgesia, auxiliary treatment, and nausea and vomiting. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.0.2 software for statistical analysis.
Eight randomized controlled trials were included in analysis that reported 876 patients in total, divided into the stented group of 453 and the stentless group of 423. All studies recorded the stone-free rate and the results of the meta-analysis showed no difference between the groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.91-1.03, p = 0.27). The total incidence of Steinstrasse in the stented group was similar to that of the stentless group with the exception of 1 study. However, the incidence of lower urinary tract symptoms was significantly higher in the stented group than in the stentless group (RR 4.10, 95% CI 2.21-7.61, p <0.00001). Significant differences could not be found in hematuria, fever, urinary tract infection, pain and analgesia, auxiliary treatment, or nausea and vomiting between the groups.
The systematic review suggested significant advantages of stenting before extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy compared to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in terms of Steinstrasse. However, stenting did not benefit stone-free rate and auxiliary treatment after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, and it induced more lower urinary tract symptoms. More high quality, randomized controlled trials are needed to address this issue.
本系统评价旨在评估在上尿路结石的管理中体外冲击波碎石术前行支架置入术的必要性和并发症。
对 PubMed®、EMBASE®和 Cochrane 图书馆进行系统检索,以确定所有随机对照试验。比较的是在上尿路结石的管理中,体外冲击波碎石术前行双 J 支架置入术与不行支架置入术的结果和并发症,包括结石清除率、石街形成、下尿路症状、血尿、发热、尿路感染、疼痛和止痛、辅助治疗、恶心和呕吐。我们使用 Cochrane 协作网的 Review Manager(RevMan)5.0.2 软件进行统计分析。
共纳入 8 项随机对照试验,共纳入 876 例患者,分为支架组 453 例和无支架组 423 例。所有研究均记录了结石清除率,meta 分析结果显示两组间无差异(RR 0.97,95%CI 0.91-1.03,p = 0.27)。支架组总的石街形成发生率与无支架组相似,除了 1 项研究。然而,支架组的下尿路症状发生率明显高于无支架组(RR 4.10,95%CI 2.21-7.61,p<0.00001)。两组间血尿、发热、尿路感染、疼痛和止痛、辅助治疗或恶心和呕吐发生率无显著差异。
系统评价表明,与原位体外冲击波碎石术相比,体外冲击波碎石术前行支架置入术在石街形成方面具有显著优势。然而,支架置入术并没有改善体外冲击波碎石术后的结石清除率和辅助治疗效果,反而导致更多的下尿路症状。需要更多高质量的随机对照试验来解决这个问题。