Top

Published in:

01-08-2019 | Original Article

Systematic review and cumulative analysis of the managements for proximal impacted ureteral stones

Authors: Tuo Deng, Yiwen Chen, Bing Liu, M. Pilar Laguna, Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette, Xiaolu Duan, Wenqi Wu, Guohua Zeng

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 8/2019

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the efficacy and safety of different treatment options for the management of proximal impacted ureteral stones (PIUS).

Methods

A systematic literature search using Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library was conducted to obtain studies concerning different managements for PIUS up to Jan 2018. Summary odds ratios (ORs), standard mean differences (SMDs) or weighted mean differences with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare the efficacy and safety of all included treatment methods, registered in PROSPERO under number CRD42018092745.

Results

A total of 15 comparative studies with 1780 patients were included. Meta-analyses of final stone-free rate (SFR) favored percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) over ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) (OR 10.35; 95% CI 5.26–20.35; P < 0.00001), laparoscopic ureterolithotomy over URL (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.05–0.25; P < 0.00001) and URL over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.28–0.77; P = 0.003). As to complications, PCNL had a significantly higher blood transfusion rate (OR 7.47; 95% CI 1.3–42.85; P = 0.02) and a lower ureteral injury rate (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04–0.52; P = 0.003) compared with URL. It also shared a significantly lower stone-retropulsion rate (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.01–0.15; P < 0.0001) and higher treatment costs (SMD = 2.71; 95% CI 0.71–4.70; P = 0.008) than URL.

Conclusions

Our meta-analysis suggested that PCNL might be the best option for PIUS owing to its higher successful rate. Complications such as hemorrhage could be decreased by the application on mini-PCNL.

Sinha M, Kekre NS, Chacko KN, Devasia A, Lionel G, Pandey AP, Gopalakrishnan G (2004) Does failure to visualize the ureter distal to an impacted calculus constitute an impediment to successful lithotripsy? J Endourol 18:431–435CrossRef

Wang Y, Zhong B, Yang X, Wang G, Hou P, Meng J (2017) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of URSL, RPLU, and MPCNL for treatment of large upper impacted ureteral stones: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urol 17:50CrossRef

Liu Y, Zhou Z, Xia A, Dai H, Guo L, Zheng J (2013) Clinical observation of different minimally invasive surgeries for the treatment of impacted upper ureteral calculi. Pak J Med Sci 29:1358–1362PubMedPubMedCentral

Qi S, Li Y, Liu X, Zhang C, Zhang H, Zhang Z, Xu Y (2014) Clinical efficacy, safety, and costs of percutaneous occlusive balloon catheter-assisted ureteroscopic lithotripsy for large impacted proximal ureteral calculi: a prospective, randomized study. J Endourol 28:1064–1070CrossRef

Topaloglu H, Karakoyunlu N, Sari S, Ozok HU, Sagnak L, Ersoy H (2014) A comparison of antegrade percutaneous and laparoscopic approaches in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones. Biomed Res Int 2014:691946CrossRef

Shao Y, Wang DW, Lu GL, Shen ZJ (2015) Retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy in comparison with ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted upper ureteral stones larger than 12 mm. World J Urol 33:1841–1845CrossRef

Khalil M (2013) Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy. Urol Ann 5:88–92CrossRef

Gao ZM, Gao S, Qu HC, Li K, Li N, Liu CL, Zhu XW, Liu YL, Wang P, Zheng XH (2017) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy improves stone-free rates for impacted proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 12:e0171230CrossRef

Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A et al. (2017) European Association of Urology guidelines on urolithiasis 2017. Available at: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed 20 June 2017

10.

Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR et al. (2016) Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis 2016. Available at: http://www.auanet.org/guidelines/antimicrobial-prophylaxis. Accessed 20 June 2017

11.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRef

12.

Kurahashi N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, Otani T, Inoue M, Tsugane S (2007) Soy product and isoflavone consumption in relation to prostate cancer in Japanese men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 16:538–545CrossRef

13.

Stang A (2010) Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25:603–605CrossRef

14.

Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA (2011) The cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRef

15.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634 (Clinical research ed) CrossRef

16.

Gu XJ, Lu JL, Xu Y (2013) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. World J Urol 31:1605–1610CrossRef

17.

Li H, Na W, Li H, Jiang Y, Gu X, Zhang M, Huo W, Kong X (2013) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus ureteroscopic lithotomy for large (> 15 mm) impacted upper ureteral stones in different locations: is the upper border of the fourth lumbar vertebra a good indication for choice of management method. J Endourol 27:1120–1125CrossRef

18.

Moufid K, Abbaka N, Touiti D, Adermouch L, Amine M, Lezrek M (2013) Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: a comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann 5:140–146CrossRef

19.

Yang Z, Song L, Xie D et al (2012) Comparative study of outcome in treating upper ureteral impacted stones using minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy with aid of patented system or transurethral ureteroscopy. Urology 80:1192–1197CrossRef

20.

Juan YS, Shen JT, Li CC, Wang CJ, Chuang SM, Huang CH, Wu WJ (2008) Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the management of impacted, large, proximal ureteral stones. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 24:204–209CrossRef

21.

Sun X, Xia S, Lu J, Liu H, Han B, Li W (2008) Treatment of large impacted proximal ureteral stones: randomized comparison of percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy versus retrograde ureterolithotripsy. J Endourol 22:913–917CrossRef

22.

Jiang JT, Li WG, Zhu YP et al (2016) Comparison of the clinical efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal laparoscopic ureterolithotomy and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in the treatment of obstructive upper ureteral calculi with concurrent urinary tract infections. Lasers Med Sci 31:915–920CrossRef

23.

Ziaee SA, Basiri A, Nadjafi-Semnani M, Zand S, Iranpour A (2006) Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and transureteral lithotripsy in the treatment of impacted lower ureteral calculi. Urol J 3:75–78PubMed

24.

Wu CF, Shee JJ, Lin WY, Lin CL, Chen CS (2004) Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones. J Urol 172:1899–1902CrossRef

25.

Li BJ (2012) Progression of minimally invasive therapy for upper ureteral calculi. Chin J New Clin Med 5:267–270

26.

Barakat TS, El-Nahas AR, Shoma AM, Shokeir AA (2013) Ureteroscopy for upper ureteral stones: overcoming the difficulties of the rigid approach. Diffic Cases Endourol 10:211–223CrossRef

27.

Mugiya S, Ozono S, Nagata M, Takayama T, Nagae H (2006) Retrograde endoscopic management of ureteral stones more than 2 cm in size. Urology 67:1164–1168CrossRef

28.

Ramakumar S, Segura JW (2001) When not to use shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones. Contemp Urol 13:54–65

29.

Lam JS, Greene TD, Gupta M (2002) Treatment of proximal ureteral calculi: holmium: YAG laser ureterolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 167:1972–1976CrossRef

30.

Preminger GM, Tiselius HG, Assimos DG et al (2007) 2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol 178:2418–2434CrossRef

31.

el-Nahas AR, Eraky I, el-Assmy AM et al (2006) Percutaneous treatment of large upper tract stones after urinary diversion. Urology 68:500–504CrossRef

32.

Karami H, Arbab AH, Hosseini SJ, Razzaghi MR, Simaei NR (2006) Impacted upper-ureteral calculi > 1 cm: blind access and totally tubeless percutaneous antegrade removal or retrograde approach? J Endourol 20:616–619CrossRef

33.

Osman M, Wendt-Nordahl G, Heger K, Michel MS, Alken P, Knoll T (2005) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access: experience from over 300 cases. BJU Int 96:875–878CrossRef

34.

Legemate JD, Wijnstok NJ, Matsuda T et al (2017) Characteristics and outcomes of ureteroscopic treatment in 2650 patients with impacted ureteral stones. World J Urol 35:1497–1506CrossRef

35.

Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien A, Sabnis R, Desai M (2011) Prospective comparative study of miniperc and standard PNL for treatment of 1 to 2 cm size renal stone. BJU Int 108:896–900PubMed

36.

Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, Lei M, Yuan J, Wan SP, Zeng G (2015) Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis 43:563–570CrossRef

37.

Sarica K, Kafkasli A, Yazici Ö et al (2015) Ureteral wall thickness at the impacted ureteral stone site: a critical predictor for success rates after SWL. Urolithiasis 43:83–88CrossRef

38.

Yoshida T, Inoue T, Omura N et al (2017) Ureteral wall thickness as a preoperative indicator of impacted stones in patients with ureteral stones undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Urology 106:45–49CrossRef

39.

Elibol O, Safak KY, Buz A, Eryildirim B, Erdem K, Sarica K (2017) Radiological noninvasive assessment of ureteral stone impaction into the ureteric wall: a critical evaluation with objective radiological parameters. Investig Clin Urol 58:339–345CrossRef

40.

Deliveliotis C, Chrisofos M, Albanis S, Serafetinides E, Varkarakis J, Protogerou V (2003) Management and follow-up of impacted ureteral stones. Urol Int 70:269–272CrossRef

41.

Sahin C, Eryildirim B, Kafkasli A et al (2015) Predictive parameters for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones: a critical evaluation. Urolithiasis 43:271–275CrossRef

42.

Yoshida T, Inoue T, Taguchi M, Omura N, Kinoshita H, Matsuda T (2018) Ureteral wall thickness as a significant factor in predicting spontaneous passage of ureteralstones of ≤ 10 mm: a preliminary report. World J Urol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2461-x CrossRefPubMed

43.

Tuerxun A, Batuer A, Erturhan S, Eryildirim B, Camur E, Sarica K (2017) Impaction and prediction: does ureteral wall thickness affect the success of medical expulsive therapy in pediatric ureteral stones? Urol Int 98:436–441CrossRef

Title: Systematic review and cumulative analysis of the managements for proximal impacted ureteral stones
Authors: Tuo Deng
Yiwen Chen
Bing Liu
M. Pilar Laguna
Jean J. M. C. H. de la Rosette
Xiaolu Duan
Wenqi Wu
Guohua Zeng
Publication date: 01-08-2019
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: World Journal of Urology / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2561-7

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Systematic review and cumulative analysis of the managements for proximal impacted ureteral stones

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Mitochondrial PIWI-interacting RNAs are novel biomarkers for clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Identification of 8 novel gene variants in primary hyperoxaluria in 21 Chinese children with urinary stones

Complications and functional outcomes of high-risk patient with cardiovascular disease on antithrombotic medication treated with the 532-nm-laser photo-vaporization Greenlight XPS-180 W for benign prostate hyperplasia

Adherence to EAU guidelines on penile cancer translates into better outcomes: a multicenter international study

A risk-stratified approach to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: implications for patients classified with low-risk disease

Outcomes after salvage radical prostatectomy and first-line radiation therapy or HIFU for recurrent localized prostate cancer: results from a multicenter study