Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Arcaniolo, Davide 
Data de Publicação: 2017
Outros Autores: De Sio, Marco , Rassweiler, Jens, Nicholas, Jilian , Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de, Carrieri, Giuseppe, Liatsikos, Evangelos, Mirone, Vincenzo, Monga, Manoj , Autorino, Riccardo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481
Resumo: Objective To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. Methods A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. Results Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). Conclusions Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.
id RCAP_ee466da359c5a45f6d84cb0e1f9cfcef
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/48481
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studiesEmergencyShock wave lithotripsyUreteroscopyUreteral stoneScience & TechnologyObjective To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. Methods A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. Results Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). Conclusions Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionSpringer VerlagUniversidade do MinhoArcaniolo, Davide De Sio, Marco Rassweiler, JensNicholas, Jilian Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues deCarrieri, GiuseppeLiatsikos, EvangelosMirone, VincenzoMonga, Manoj Autorino, Riccardo2017-022017-02-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481eng2194-722810.1007/s00240-017-0960-728233025https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00240-017-0960-7info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-21T12:19:56Zoai:repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt:1822/48481Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T19:12:59.524881Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
title Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
spellingShingle Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
Arcaniolo, Davide 
Emergency
Shock wave lithotripsy
Ureteroscopy
Ureteral stone
Science & Technology
title_short Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
title_full Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
title_fullStr Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
title_full_unstemmed Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
title_sort Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
author Arcaniolo, Davide 
author_facet Arcaniolo, Davide 
De Sio, Marco 
Rassweiler, Jens
Nicholas, Jilian 
Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de
Carrieri, Giuseppe
Liatsikos, Evangelos
Mirone, Vincenzo
Monga, Manoj 
Autorino, Riccardo
author_role author
author2 De Sio, Marco 
Rassweiler, Jens
Nicholas, Jilian 
Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de
Carrieri, Giuseppe
Liatsikos, Evangelos
Mirone, Vincenzo
Monga, Manoj 
Autorino, Riccardo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade do Minho
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Arcaniolo, Davide 
De Sio, Marco 
Rassweiler, Jens
Nicholas, Jilian 
Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de
Carrieri, Giuseppe
Liatsikos, Evangelos
Mirone, Vincenzo
Monga, Manoj 
Autorino, Riccardo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Emergency
Shock wave lithotripsy
Ureteroscopy
Ureteral stone
Science & Technology
topic Emergency
Shock wave lithotripsy
Ureteroscopy
Ureteral stone
Science & Technology
description Objective To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. Methods A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. Results Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). Conclusions Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-02
2017-02-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481
url http://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2194-7228
10.1007/s00240-017-0960-7
28233025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00240-017-0960-7
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Verlag
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Verlag
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799132566984327168