Evidence Hub

Safety of Prophylactic Ureteral Stents in Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

M. Benhammou, G. Kareem, Muhammed Elhadi, Abdelaziz H. Salama, S. Zreigh, R. Shembesh, M. Hamza, D. Elraggal et al.

The American surgeon, 2025

104 participants

Abstract

The association between prophylactic ureteral stents (PUS) and postoperative complications was evaluated. Five electronic databases were searched to identify studies involving patients undergoing colorectal surgery (CRS) with PUS. Primary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), ureteral injury (UI), urinary tract infection (UTI) and hematuria. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated using a random-effects model. Seventeen retrospective cohort studies involving 104 162 patients were analyzed. AKI incidence was not significantly different between PUS and non-PUS (P = .06). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant increase in AKI (P = .08). UI was similar (P = .74); UTI (P < .01) and hematuria (P < .01) were significantly higher with PUS. Operative time was longer (P < .01). PUS in CRS did not significantly reduce UI or increase AKI risk but was associated with higher UTI and hematuria.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. 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: 104 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