What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216208%3A11110%2F17%3A10364685" target="_blank" >RIV/00216208:11110/17:10364685 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016" target="_blank" >http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.eururo.2017.04.016</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Context: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest. Objective: To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones. Conclusions: Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay. Patient summary: In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.

Název v anglickém jazyce

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review

Popis výsledku anglicky

Context: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest. Objective: To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones. Conclusions: Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay. Patient summary: In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30217 - Urology and nephrology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2017

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

European Urology

ISSN

0302-2838

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

72

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

5

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

15

Strana od-do

772-786

Kód UT WoS článku

000412685300031

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85018683243