Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prestenting (PS) versus non-PS (NPS) of flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) to treat large upper urinary stones. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature research of PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to August 2019), and citation lists to identify eligible studies. All studies comparing PS versus NPS of fURS were included. Data were analyzed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. Results: Overall, 7 studies including 3,145 patients (PS 1,408; NPS 1,737) were included in this article. PS group was associated with older age (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.91 year; p < 0.001) and more male patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.34; p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between PS and NPS in BMI (WMD 0.34 kg/m2; p = 0.13), stone size (WMD 0.13 mm; p = 0.77), and operative time (WMD 0.44 min; p = 0.86). Compared with NPS, PS showed better initial success rate (OR 4.04; p < 0.001) and higher SFR (OR 1.64; p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences for complications (OR 0.84; p = 0.42) and Clavien-Dindo score ≥3 complications (OR 1.04; p = 0.93). Conclusion: PS could improve initial success rate and avoid secondary general anesthesia for first ureteral access sheath failed patients. PS could provide better SFR than NPS in the treatment of large upper urinary stones with fURS.
Journal Section:
Editor's choice
References
1.
Pietropaolo
A
, Proietti
S
, Geraghty
R
, Skolarikos
A
, Papatsoris
A
, Liatsikos
E
, . Trends of “urolithiasis: interventions, simulation, and laser technology” over the last 16 years (2000–2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review from European section of uro-technology (ESUT)
. World J Urol
. 2017
;35
(11
):1651
–8
.2.
Turk
C
, Petrik
A
, Sarica
K
, Seitz
C
, Skolarikos
A
, Straub
M
, . EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis
. Eur Urol
. 2016
;69
(3
):475
–82
.3.
Stern
JM
, Yiee
J
, Park
S
. Safety and efficacy of ureteral access sheaths
. J Endourol
. 2007
;21
(2
):119
–23
.4.
Auge
BK
, Pietrow
PK
, Lallas
CD
, Raj
GV
, Santa-Cruz
RW
, Preminger
GM
. Ureteral access sheath provides protection against elevated renal pressures during routine flexible ureteroscopic stone manipulation
. J Endourol
. 2004
;18
(1
):33
–6
.5.
Traxer
O
, Thomas
A
. Prospective evaluation and classification of ureteral wall injuries resulting from insertion of a ureteral access sheath during retrograde intrarenal surgery
. J Urol
. 2013
;189
(2
):580
–4
.6.
Al-Marhoon
MS
, Shareef
O
, Venkiteswaran
KP
. Complications and outcomes of JJ stenting of the ureter in urological practice: a single-centre experience
. Arab J Urol
. 2012
;10
(4
):372
–7
.7.
Hozo
SP
, Djulbegovic
B
, Hozo
I
. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample
. BMC Med Res Methodol
. 2005
;5
:13
.8.
Assimos
D
, Crisci
A
, Culkin
D
, Xue
W
, Roelofs
A
, Duvdevani
M
, . Preoperative JJ stent placement in ureteric and renal stone treatment: results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society (CROES) ureteroscopy (URS) global study
. BJU Int
. 2016
;117
(4
):648
–54
.9.
Chen
H
, Chen
G
, Zhu
Y
, Yang
Z
, Xiong
C
, Pan
Y
. Analysis of prestenting on outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for upper urinary urolithiasis: a historical control study
. Urol Int
. 2019
;102
(2
):175
–80
.10.
Dessyn
JF
, Balssa
L
, Chabannes
E
, Jacquemet
B
, Bernardini
S
, Bittard
H
, . Flexible ureterorenoscopy for renal and proximal ureteral stone in patients with previous ureteral stenting: impact on stone-free rate and morbidity
. J Endourol
. 2016
;30
(10
):1084
–8
.11.
Jessen
JP
, Breda
A
, Brehmer
M
, Liatsikos
EN
, Millan Rodriguez
F
, Osther
PJ
, . International collaboration in endourology: multicenter evaluation of prestenting for ureterorenoscopy
. J Endourol
. 2016
;30
(3
):268
–73
.12.
Kawahara
T
, Ito
H
, Terao
H
, Ishigaki
H
, Ogawa
T
, Uemura
H
, . Preoperative stenting for ureteroscopic lithotripsy for a large renal stone
. Int J Urol
. 2012
;19
(9
):881
–5
.13.
Lee
MH
, Lee
IJ
, Kim
TJ
, Lee
SC
, Jeong
CW
, Hong
SK
, . The effect of short-term preoperative ureteral stenting on the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones
. World J Urol
. 2019
;37
(7
):1435
–40
.14.
Zhang
J
, Xu
C
, He
D
, Lu
Y
, Hu
H
, Qin
B
, . Flexible ureteroscopy for renal stone without preoperative ureteral stenting shows good prognosis
. PeerJ
. 2016
;4
:e2728
.15.
Netsch
C
, Knipper
S
, Bach
T
, Herrmann
TR
, Gross
AJ
. Impact of preoperative ureteral stenting on stone-free rates of ureteroscopy for nephroureterolithiasis: a matched-paired analysis of 286 patients
. Urology
. 2012
;80
(6
):1214
–9
.16.
Chu
L
, Sternberg
KM
, Averch
TD
. Preoperative stenting decreases operative time and reoperative rates of ureteroscopy
. J Endourol
. 2011
;25
(5
):751
–4
.17.
Perlmutter
AE
, Talug
C
, Tarry
WF
, Zaslau
S
, Mohseni
H
, Kandzari
SJ
. Impact of stone location on success rates of endoscopic lithotripsy for nephrolithiasis
. Urology
. 2008
;71
(2
):214
–7
.18.
Rubenstein
RA
, Zhao
LC
, Loeb
S
, Shore
DM
, Nadler
RB
. Prestenting improves ureteroscopic stone-free rates
. J Endourol
. 2007
;21
(11
):1277
–80
.19.
Joshi
HB
, Stainthorpe
A
, MacDonagh
RP
, Keeley
FX
Jr, Timoney
AG
, Barry
MJ
. Indwelling ureteral stents: evaluation of symptoms, quality of life and utility
. J Urol
. 2003
;169
(3
):1065
–9
; discussion 1069
.http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000048980.33855.90.20.
Lumma
PP
, Schneider
P
, Strauss
A
, Plothe
KD
, Thelen
P
, Ringert
RH
, . Impact of ureteral stenting prior to ureterorenoscopy on stone-free rates and complications
. World J Urol
. 2013
;31
(4
):855
–9
.© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2021
You do not currently have access to this content.
