Antireflux Ureteral Stents Prevent Stent-Related Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Rattachement africain : us, gb, ae. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Ureteral stents are widely used in urological care, but they are often associated with adverse stent-related symptoms (SRS), such as painful urination, elevated urinary frequency, and abdominal discomfort. Antireflux ureteral stents have been developed to reduce stent-related pain and reflux by minimizing vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the efficacy of antireflux ureteral stents in mitigating SRS compared to conventional urethral stents. Our study included a total of 269 cases from three RCTs. The meta-analysis showed that antireflux ureteral stents were significantly more effective than standard stents in reducing SRS, including stent-related pain (odds ratio (OR): 4.80, 95% CI: 2.77, 8.31, p <0.00001), severe stent-related pain (OR: 8.35, 95% CI: 2.12, 32.89, p=0.002), flank pain while urinating (OR: 5.98, 95% CI: 3.35, 10.68, p <0.00001), and severe flank pain while urinating (OR: 15.79, 95% CI: 2.91, 85.57, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in the rates of postoperative creatinine abnormality or postoperative hydronephrosis between the two groups. Therefore, antireflux ureteral stents are more effective than standard stents in reducing SRS. This suggests that antireflux ureteral stents should be considered for patients undergoing ureteral stenting.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Antireflux Ureteral Stents Prevent Stent-Related Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
- Date Crossref
- 24/11/2023
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.