Vincent De Coninck1,2,3, Etienne Xavier Keller1,2,4, Bhaskar Somani5, Guido Giusti6, Silvia Proietti6, Moises Rodriguez-Socarras7, Maria Rodríguez-Monsalve8, Steeve Doizi1,2, Eugenio Ventimiglia1,2,9, Olivier Traxer10,11. 1. Sorbonne Université, Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France. 2. Groupe de Recherche Clinique Sur La Lithiase Urinaire, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Hôpital Tenon, 75020, Paris, France. 3. Department of Urology, AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium. 4. Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 5. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK. 6. Department of Urology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Ville Turro Division, Milan, Italy. 7. ICUA (Instituto de Cirugia Urologica Avazada), Madrid, Spain. 8. Departamento de Urología, Puerta de Hierro University Hospital, Madrid, Spain. 9. Division of Experimental Oncology/Unit of Urology, URI, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 10. Sorbonne Université, Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, 4 rue de la Chine, 75020, Paris, France. olivier.traxer@aphp.fr. 11. Groupe de Recherche Clinique Sur La Lithiase Urinaire, Sorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Hôpital Tenon, 75020, Paris, France. olivier.traxer@aphp.fr.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper was to give a complete overview of all published complications associated with ureteroscopy and their according management and prevention in current urological practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42018116273. A bibliographic search of the Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases was performed by two authors (V.D.C. and E.X.K.). According to the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) study design approach and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards, a consensus between these authors was found relating to the thematic structure of this review. RESULTS: Ureteral stent discomfort, ureteral wall injury and stone migration are the most frequently reported complications. The worst complications include urosepsis, multi-organ failure and death. Incidence rates on these and other complications varied extensively between the reviewed reports. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy seems to be associated with more complications than currently reported. The present overview may help urologists to prevent, recognize and solve complications of ureteroscopy. It may also stimulate colleagues to perform prospective studies using standardized systems for classifying complications. These are warranted to compare results among different studies, to conduct meta-analyses, to inform health care workers and to counsel patients correctly about possible risks of ureteroscopy.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this paper was to give a complete overview of all published complications associated with ureteroscopy and their according management and prevention in current urological practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This review was registered in PROSPERO with registration number CRD42018116273. A bibliographic search of the Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science databases was performed by two authors (V.D.C. and E.X.K.). According to the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) study design approach and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards, a consensus between these authors was found relating to the thematic structure of this review. RESULTS: Ureteral stent discomfort, ureteral wall injury and stone migration are the most frequently reported complications. The worst complications include urosepsis, multi-organ failure and death. Incidence rates on these and other complications varied extensively between the reviewed reports. CONCLUSION: Ureteroscopy seems to be associated with more complications than currently reported. The present overview may help urologists to prevent, recognize and solve complications of ureteroscopy. It may also stimulate colleagues to perform prospective studies using standardized systems for classifying complications. These are warranted to compare results among different studies, to conduct meta-analyses, to inform health care workers and to counsel patients correctly about possible risks of ureteroscopy.
Authors: Mark Taratkin; Christopher Netsch; Dmitry Enikeev; Andreas J Gross; Thomas R W Herrmann; Dmitry Korolev; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Petr Glybochko; Benedikt Becker Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.226