Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38613692›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Ureteral stricture rate after endoscopic treatments for urolithiasis and related risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.

S Moretto, A Saita, C M Scoffone, M Talso, B K Somani, O Traxer, O Angerri, T Knoll, E Liatsikos, T R W Herrmann and 27 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Efficacy of thermo-expandable nickel-titanium alloy ureteral stent placement as maintenance therapy for ureteral strictures].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2026
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

37 authors.

S MorettoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy. stefano.moretto.ch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3418-5202
A SaitaDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
C M ScoffoneDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Turin, Italy.
M TalsoDepartment of Urology, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy.
B K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
O TraxerDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
O AngerriDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
T KnollDepartment of Urology, Sindelfingen Medical Center, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
E LiatsikosDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Patras, Patras, Greece.
T R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Ø UlvikDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
A SkolarikosSecond Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athen, Athens, Greece.
C M CraccoDepartment of Urology, Cottolengo Hospital, Turin, Italy.
E X KellerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
M PaciottiDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
A PiccoliniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
A UleriDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
T TaillyDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium.
L CarmignaniDepartment of Urology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
A PietropaoloDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
M CorralesDepartment of Urology, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
G LughezzaniDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
M LazzeriDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
V FasuloDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
V De ConinckDepartment of Urology, AZ Klina, Brasschaat, Belgium.
P ArenaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.
U NageleDepartment of Urology, General Hospital Hall in Tirol, Hall in Tirol, Austria.
S FerrettiDepartment of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Baggiovara, Italy.
P KronenbergDepartment of Urology, Hospital CUF Descobertas, Lisbon, Portugal.
D Perez-FentesDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Complex of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago, Spain.
P J OstherDepartment of Urology, Lillebaelt Hospital, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark.
I K GoumasDepartment of Urology, Istituto Clinico Beato Matteo, Vigevano, Italy.
P AcquatiDepartment of Urology, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Milan, Italy.
L AjayiDepartment of Urology, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
P DianaDepartment of Urology, Fundació Puigvert Univ. Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
P CasaleDepartment of Urology, Humanitas Clinical and Research Institute IRCCS, Rozzano, Milan, Italy.
N M BuffiDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design).

resultsA total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively.

conclusionsThe overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment.

Indexed as

LithotripsyPostoperative ComplicationsUreteroscopyUrolithiasisConstriction, PathologicHumansNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousRisk FactorsUreteral ObstructionEndoscopic surgeryIatrogenic ureteral injuryRisk factorsStone diseaseStone treatmentUreteral stricture

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.