Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2023
Diameter of ureteral access sheath and ureteral stenosis development: a systematic review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pissaia Tamires Battistini, Belkovsky Mikhael, Passerotti Carlo Camargo, Artifon Everton Luiz de Almeida, Otoch Jose Pinhata, Cruz José Arnaldo Shiomi da
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) are widely used in ureteroscopy. UAS are believed to pose a significant risk for ureteral stenosis due to ureteral mucosal compression, but little evidence supports this claim. Our systematic review aimed to investigate the relationship between different UAS diameters and stenosis risk.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane, from its inception to May 2023. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. χ2 test was performed to compare the prevalence within the groups.
RESULTS: Six nonrandomized trials and one randomized, with a total of 962 patients, were included. The overall incidence of ureteral stenosis of 0.9%. UAS sizes were: 9.5/11.5Fr, 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr, and 14/16Fr. Within each subgroup, the incidence of ureteral stenosis was: 0.4, 8, 0, 1, and 1% (p = 0.099). No trend for stenosis was observed among larger UAS.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, no relationship between UAS diameter and incidence of ureteral stenosis was observed. Nonetheless, additional randomized controlled trials are required to support this finding.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane, from its inception to May 2023. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines were followed. χ2 test was performed to compare the prevalence within the groups.
RESULTS: Six nonrandomized trials and one randomized, with a total of 962 patients, were included. The overall incidence of ureteral stenosis of 0.9%. UAS sizes were: 9.5/11.5Fr, 10/12Fr, 11/13Fr, 12/14Fr, and 14/16Fr. Within each subgroup, the incidence of ureteral stenosis was: 0.4, 8, 0, 1, and 1% (p = 0.099). No trend for stenosis was observed among larger UAS.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review, no relationship between UAS diameter and incidence of ureteral stenosis was observed. Nonetheless, additional randomized controlled trials are required to support this finding.