Reprint ‒ Ureteral stent vs. no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi: A Cochrane review
Keywords:ureteral stent, ureteroscopy, systematic review, meta-analysis, Cochrane, GRADE
Introduction: We aimed to assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy.
Methods: We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions on publication language or status up to February 1, 2019. We only included randomized trials. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE.
Results: We included 23 studies with 2656 randomized patients. Primary outcomes: It is uncertain whether stenting reduces the number of unplanned return visits (very low certainty of evidence [CoE]). Pain on the day of surgery is probably similar (mean difference [MD] 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13‒0.78; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1‒3 may show little to no difference (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.25; 95% CI -0.32‒0.82; low CoE). It is uncertain whether stented patients experience more pain on postoperative days 4‒30 (very low CoE). Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio [RR] 1.15; 95% CI 0.39‒3.33; low CoE). Secondary outcomes: We are uncertain whether stenting reduces the need for narcotics and reduces ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days (very low CoE). Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.32‒1.55; low CoE). This review was limited to patients in whom ureteroscopy was deemed ‘uncomplicated.’ In addition, time intervals for the grouping for the reported degree of pain were established post-hoc. The CoE for most outcomes was rated as low or very low for methodological reasons.
Conclusions: Findings of this review illustrate the tradeoffs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.