SynthesisWorld journal of urology2025
Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the elderly. is it safe and effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRising life expectancy has led to a growing number of elderly individuals requiring urological care. Ureteroscopy (URS), a first-line surgical treatment for urinary stones < 2 cm, presents unique challenges in this population, where evidence remains limited. This meta-analysis sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of URS for urolithiasis in elderly patients compared to a younger cohort.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies comparing URS outcomes between elderly and younger patients. Studies were stratified based on age cutoffs for older individuals, with five primary cutoffs employed for subgroup analysis: ≥ 60, ≥ 65, ≥ 75, ≥ 80, and ≥ 85 years old. Primary outcomes included stone-free rate (SFR) and minor and major complications. Secondary outcomes were operative time (OT), length of stay (LOS), and reintervention rates.
resultsFourteen studies encompassing 7,664 patients were included. No significant differences were observed between groups in SFR (OR 1.03 [95%confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.23], p = 0.72), minor (OR 1.23 [95%CI 0.87-1.76], p = 0.22) or major complications (OR 1.41 [95%CI0.85-2.32], p = 0.18). While elderly patients experienced a longer LOS (MD 0.97 [95%CI0.09-1.84], p = 0.03), OT and reintervention rates were comparable between groups.
conclusionsURS appears to be a viable treatment option for elderly patients deemed suitable for active stone management. The procedure did not increase the risk of minor or major complications, and provided equivalent SFR, although longer LOS may be expected in this population. Future research with standardized elderly definitions and extended follow-up is essential to better delineate the role of URS in this demographic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40788312What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.