Tamsin Drake1, Nikolaos Grivas2, Saeed Dabestani3, Thomas Knoll4, Thomas Lam5, Steven Maclennan6, Ales Petrik7, Andreas Skolarikos8, Michael Straub9, Christian Tuerk10, Cathy Yuhong Yuan11, Kemal Sarica12. 1. Department of Urology, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Bournemouth, UK. 2. Department of Urology, Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina, Greece; Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden. 4. Department of Urology, Sindelfingen-Boeblingen Medical Center, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany. 5. Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland; Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 6. Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 7. Department of Urology, Charles University, First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, Hospital Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 8. Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece. 9. Department of Urology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Vienna, Austria. 11. Division of Gastroenterology & Cochrane UGPD Group, Department of Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 12. Department of Urology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Research and Teaching Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: saricakemal@gmail.com.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched from January 2000 to November 2014. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies comparing any subtype or variation of URS and SWL were included. The primary benefit outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). The primary harm outcome was complications. Secondary outcomes included retreatment rate, need for secondary, and/or adjunctive procedures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five thousand-three hundred and eighty abstracts and 387 full-text articles were screened. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria; 19 (39.6%) were RCTs. No studies on children met inclusion criteria. URS and SWL were compared in 22 studies (4 RCTs, 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial, and 17 nonrandomised studies). Meta-analyses were inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. SFR favoured URS in 9/22 studies. Retreatment rates were higher for SWL compared with URS in all studies but one. Longer hospital stay and adjunctive procedures (most commonly the insertion of a JJ stent) were more common when primary treatment was URS. Complications were reported in 11 out of 22 studies. In eight studies, it was possible to report this as a Clavien-Dindo Grade. Higher complication rates across all grades were reported for URS compared with SWL. For intragroup (intra-SWL and intra-URS) comparative studies, 25 met the inclusion criteria. These studies varied greatly in outcomes measured with data being heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.
CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched from January 2000 to November 2014. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies comparing any subtype or variation of URS and SWL were included. The primary benefit outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). The primary harm outcome was complications. Secondary outcomes included retreatment rate, need for secondary, and/or adjunctive procedures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five thousand-three hundred and eighty abstracts and 387 full-text articles were screened. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria; 19 (39.6%) were RCTs. No studies on children met inclusion criteria. URS and SWL were compared in 22 studies (4 RCTs, 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial, and 17 nonrandomised studies). Meta-analyses were inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. SFR favoured URS in 9/22 studies. Retreatment rates were higher for SWL compared with URS in all studies but one. Longer hospital stay and adjunctive procedures (most commonly the insertion of a JJ stent) were more common when primary treatment was URS. Complications were reported in 11 out of 22 studies. In eight studies, it was possible to report this as a Clavien-Dindo Grade. Higher complication rates across all grades were reported for URS compared with SWL. For intragroup (intra-SWL and intra-URS) comparative studies, 25 met the inclusion criteria. These studies varied greatly in outcomes measured with data being heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.
Authors: M May; M Schönthaler; C Gilfrich; I Wolff; J Peter; A Miernik; H-M Fritsche; M Burger; M Schostak; S Lebentrau Journal: Urologe A Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ranan Dasgupta; Sarah Cameron; Lorna Aucott; Graeme MacLennan; Mary M Kilonzo; Thomas Bl Lam; Ruth Thomas; John Norrie; Alison McDonald; Ken Anson; James N'Dow; Neil Burgess; Charles T Clark; Francis X Keeley; Sara J MacLennan; Kath Starr; Samuel McClinton Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Jason Y Lee; Sero Andonian; Naeem Bhojani; Jennifer Bjazevic; Ben H Chew; Shubha De; Hazem Elmansy; Andrea G Lantz-Powers; Kenneth T Pace; Trevor D Schuler; Rajiv K Singal; Peter Wang; Michael Ordon Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Ranan Dasgupta; Sarah Cameron; Lorna Aucott; Graeme MacLennan; Ruth E Thomas; Mary M Kilonzo; Thomas B L Lam; James N'Dow; John Norrie; Ken Anson; Neil Burgess; Charles T Clark; Francis X Keeley; Sara J MacLennan; Kath Starr; Sam McClinton Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 24.267