Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and safety of percutaneous nephrostomy versus retrograde ureteral stenting in the treatment of acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection

Xidong Wang, Gang Wu, Tianqi Wang, Shangjing Liu, Gui-Xin Ding, Qiancheng Mao, Yong-Li Chu, Yuan-Shan Cui et al.

Therapeutic Advances in Urology, 2024

727 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: The debate regarding the optimal drainage method for acute obstructive upper urinary tract infection persists, focusing on the choice between percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and retrograde ureteral stenting (RUS). Aims: This study aims to systematically examine the perioperative outcomes and safety associated with PCN and RUS in treating acute obstructive upper urinary tract infections. Methods: A comprehensive investigation was conducted using the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to December 2022, following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. The utilized keywords included ‘PCN’, ‘RUS’, ‘acute upper obstructive uropathy’, and ‘RCT’. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies providing accurate and analyzable data, which incorporated the total subject count, perioperative outcomes, and complication rates. The assessed perioperative outcomes included fluoroscopy time, normalization of temperature, normalization of serum creatinine, normalization of white blood cell (WBC) count, and operative time. Safety outcomes encompassed failure rate, intraoperative and postoperative hematuria, postoperative fever, postoperative pain, and postoperative nephrostomy tube or stent slippage rate. The study protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022352474). Results: The meta-analysis encompassed 7 trials involving 727 patients, with 412 assigned to the PCN group and 315 to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 727 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free