Jingdong Li1, Xueliang Chang1, Yaxuan Wang1, Zhenwei Han2. 1. Department of Urology, the 2nd Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China. 2. Department of Urology, the 2nd Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China - hanzhenwei1101@126.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To review current studies and conduct a meta-analysis on the topic of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic research of PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to March 2019), and citation lists was performed to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies comparing LU versus URSL with holmium laser in proximal ureteral stones were included. Statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, seven studies were included in analysis involving 884 patients (LU 387; URSL 497). Our meta-analysis showed that LU group had bigger stone size than URSL group (WMD 0.19 cm; P=0.001). LU group was associated with longer operative time (WMD 36.29 min; P<0.001), and length of hospital stay (WMD 1.24 d; P=0.04). However, LU group showed better initial stone-free rate (OR 11.03; P<0.001), and final stone-free rate (OR 22.37; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in all complications (RR 1.06; P=0.76). While, LU group had fewer Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications (RR 0.21; P=0.002), fewer ureteral stricture (RR 0.26; P=0.04), and lower need of auxiliary procedures (RR 0.09; P<0.001) compared with URSL group. CONCLUSIONS: LU could provide a higher stone-free rate and fewer severe complications compared with URSL with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones. More importantly, LU could also reduce the postoperative ureteral stricture rate.
INTRODUCTION: To review current studies and conduct a meta-analysis on the topic of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic research of PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to March 2019), and citation lists was performed to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies comparing LU versus URSL with holmium laser in proximal ureteral stones were included. Statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, seven studies were included in analysis involving 884 patients (LU 387; URSL 497). Our meta-analysis showed that LU group had bigger stone size than URSL group (WMD 0.19 cm; P=0.001). LU group was associated with longer operative time (WMD 36.29 min; P<0.001), and length of hospital stay (WMD 1.24 d; P=0.04). However, LU group showed better initial stone-free rate (OR 11.03; P<0.001), and final stone-free rate (OR 22.37; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in all complications (RR 1.06; P=0.76). While, LU group had fewer Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications (RR 0.21; P=0.002), fewer ureteral stricture (RR 0.26; P=0.04), and lower need of auxiliary procedures (RR 0.09; P<0.001) compared with URSL group. CONCLUSIONS: LU could provide a higher stone-free rate and fewer severe complications compared with URSL with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones. More importantly, LU could also reduce the postoperative ureteral stricture rate.