Перейти к основному содержанию
AkademIndex

Продукты

Для разработчиков

AkademBaseОткрытый API экосистемы
Обзорная статья

Natural History of Post-Treatment Kidney Stone Fragments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Eleanor BrainRobert GeraghtyDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, EnglandCatherine LovegroveDepartment of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, EnglandBingyuan YangDepartment of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, EnglandBhaskar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, England
2021en
ABI

Аннотация

PURPOSE: We assessed the literature around post-treatment asymptomatic residual stone fragments and performed a meta-analysis. The main outcomes were intervention rate and disease progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Ovid®, MEDLINE®, Embase™, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov using search terms: "asymptomatic", "nephrolithiasis", "ESWL", "PCNL", "URS" and "intervention." Inclusion criteria were all studies with residual renal fragments following treatment (shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy). Analysis was performed using 'metafor' in R and bias determined using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: =0.57, Cochran's Q=7.11 (p=0.07) and Egger's regression: z=-0.75, p=0.45. Bias analysis demonstrated a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Larger post-treatment residual fragments are significantly more likely to require further intervention especially in the long term. Smaller fragments, although less likely to require further intervention, still carry that risk. Notably, there is no significant difference in disease progression between fragment sizes. Patients with residual fragments should be appropriately counselled and informed decision-making regarding further management should be done.

Перевод пока недоступен

Идентификаторы

Цитирования и источники

Цитирований: 3Использованных источников: 0