Utilize este identificador para referenciar este registo: http://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481

TítuloEmergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies
Autor(es)Arcaniolo, Davide 
De Sio, Marco 
Rassweiler, Jens
Nicholas, Jilian 
Lima, Estêvão Augusto Rodrigues de
Carrieri, Giuseppe
Liatsikos, Evangelos
Mirone, Vincenzo
Monga, Manoj 
Autorino, Riccardo
Palavras-chaveEmergency
Shock wave lithotripsy
Ureteroscopy
Ureteral stone
DataFev-2017
EditoraSpringer-Verlag Berlin
RevistaUrolithiasis
Resumo(s)Objective To analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting. Methods A systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis. Results Four studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37). Conclusions Emergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.
Tipoarticle
URIhttp://hdl.handle.net/1822/48481
DOI10.1007/s00240-017-0960-7
ISSN2194-7228
2194-7236
Versão da editorahttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00240-017-0960-7
Arbitragem científicayes
AcessoopenAccess
Aparece nas coleções:ICVS - Artigos em Revistas Internacionais com Referee

Ficheiros deste registo:
Ficheiro Descrição TamanhoFormato 
2017arcaniolod.pdf1,15 MBAdobe PDFVer/Abrir

Partilhe no FacebookPartilhe no TwitterPartilhe no DeliciousPartilhe no LinkedInPartilhe no DiggAdicionar ao Google BookmarksPartilhe no MySpacePartilhe no Orkut
Exporte no formato BibTex mendeley Exporte no formato Endnote Adicione ao seu Currículo DeGóis