Ureteral stents cannot decrease the incidence of ureteroileal anastomotic stricture and leakage: A systematic review and meta-analysis
| Autor: | Longbin Xiong, Zeshen Wu, Fangjian Zhou, Zhiyong Li, Yulu Peng, Zhiling Zhang, Hui-Ming Lu, Min-Hua Deng, Kang Ning, Zhuowei Liu, Chunping Yu |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
medicine.medical_treatment Constriction Pathologic Urinary Diversion Anastomosis Cochrane Library Cystectomy Ileum Humans Medicine business.industry Incidence Incidence (epidemiology) Anastomosis Surgical Urinary diversion Stent General Medicine Odds ratio Surgery surgical procedures operative Stents Ureter business Cohort study |
| Zdroj: | International Journal of Surgery. 93:106058 |
| ISSN: | 1743-9191 |
| Popis: | Background The ileal conduit and ileal orthotopic neobladder were the most popular methods for urinary diversion following radical cystectomy. Stenting the anastomosis of ileo-ureter or ureter-neobladder was a common practice. However, it is still controversial if ureteral stents could prevent complications such as ureteroileal anastomosis stricture (UIAS) and ureteroileal anastomosis leakage (UIAL) after ureteral anastomosis. Objectives This study aims to investigate the role of the ureteral stent in preventing UIAS and UIAL. Data sources We systematically searched the related studies in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to June 2020. Study eligibility criteria Cohort studies that identified the use of stent and the incidence of UIAS or UIAL were recorded. Data synthesis Comparative meta-analysis was conducted on four cohort studies for comparison of UIAS and UIAL between the stented and nonstented groups. Besides, eleven studies which reported the events of UIAS and UIAL were used for meta-analysis of single proportion. Results A total of 11 studies were qualified for analysis. Comparative meta-analysis identified that the incidence of UIAS was higher in the stented group than that in the nonstented group, but this did not reach a significant difference (odds ratio [OR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88–3.05; P = 0.12). Besides, there was no difference in the incidences of UIAL between the stented and the nonstented groups. On meta-analysis of single proportion, the incidence of UIAS was 7% (95% CI: 3%–10%) in the stented group and 3% (95% CI: 1%–6%) in the nonstented group. The UIAL rate was 1% (95% CI, 0%–4%) in stented patients and 2% (95% CI, 1%–4%) in nonstented patients. Conclusion Stenting the ureteroileal anastomosis resulted in a higher incidence of UIAS. There is no evidence to support ureteral stents could prevent the occurrence of UIAL after urinary diversion. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect