SynthesisUrolithiasis2026
Incidence and context-specific risk patterns of ureteral avulsion and perforation during ureteroscopy: EAU endourology systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Urolithiasis, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ureteral perforation and avulsion are rare but potentially severe complications of ureteroscopy (URS), and their reported incidence varies substantially because of heterogeneous populations, techniques, and denominators. The objective of presented meta-analysis was to estimate the procedure-level incidence of ureteral perforation and avulsion during URS for ureteral stones and explore study-level factors associated with these complications. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261441125). PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched on June 1, 2026. Random-effects meta-analyses of proportions used logit transformation and REML estimation. Heterogeneity, prediction intervals, small-study effects, influence diagnostics, subgroup analyses, and exploratory univariable meta-regression were assessed. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Series. Fifteen studies comprising 20,635 ureteroscopic procedures were included. The pooled incidence of ureteral perforation was 1.89% (95% CI 1.11-3.19%; I²=93.5%), with a prediction interval of 0.26-12.45%. Perforation incidence was 1.39% in studies not restricted to impacted stones versus 13.71% in impacted-only cohorts. The pooled incidence of ureteral avulsion was 0.32% (42 events; I²=64.9%), with a prediction interval of 0.04-2.76%; corresponding subgroup rates were 0.24% and 2.44%, respectively. Among non-impacted-only studies, a higher male proportion was associated with greater study-level odds of perforation (OR 2.03 per 10% increase; 95% CI 1.26-3.26; p = 0.003). Other examined demographic, stone, instrument, and lithotripsy variables were not significantly associated with either outcome; meta-regression findings remain exploratory. Ureteral perforation and avulsion remain uncommon but clinically important URS complications. Impacted stones identify a markedly higher-risk procedural context, supporting risk-stratified, atraumatic ureteroscopic strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42782295What 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.