Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2022
Non-contrast computed tomography-based factors in predicting ESWL success: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический 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.
Güler Yavuz
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We assessed the efficacy of some predictive factors that can be measured with non-contrast computed tomography and may affect ESWL success with a systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All data sources were broadly investigated up to April 2022. Data were extracted from the relevant studies and analyzed with RevMan software. In a random effects model, standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) values were given with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: In total, pooled analysis included 7148 patients in 43 studies. The combined effect estimate showed significant differences between the ESWL success and ESWL failure groups in terms of Hounsfield unit (HU), Hounsfield density (HD), skin to stone distance (SSD), ureteral wall thickness (UWT), stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter, and hydronephrosis. However, perinephric stranding and renal cortical thickness were not found to be statistically significant between the study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: HU, HD, SSD, UWT, stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter and hydronephrosis are effective factors for prediction of ESWL success. It is important to decide on treatment before the procedure for stones with appropriate diameter for ESWL.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All data sources were broadly investigated up to April 2022. Data were extracted from the relevant studies and analyzed with RevMan software. In a random effects model, standard mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) values were given with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: In total, pooled analysis included 7148 patients in 43 studies. The combined effect estimate showed significant differences between the ESWL success and ESWL failure groups in terms of Hounsfield unit (HU), Hounsfield density (HD), skin to stone distance (SSD), ureteral wall thickness (UWT), stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter, and hydronephrosis. However, perinephric stranding and renal cortical thickness were not found to be statistically significant between the study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: HU, HD, SSD, UWT, stone volume, stone area, abdominal fat parameters, diameter of proximal ureter and hydronephrosis are effective factors for prediction of ESWL success. It is important to decide on treatment before the procedure for stones with appropriate diameter for ESWL.