Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 February;72(1) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 February;72(1):30-7

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2020 February;72(1):30-7

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03557-4

Copyright © 2019 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy versus ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Jingdong LI, Xueliang CHANG, Yaxuan WANG, Zhenwei HAN

Department of Urology, the 2nd Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China



INTRODUCTION: To review current studies and conduct a meta-analysis on the topic of laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LU) versus ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic research of PubMed, Ovid, Scopus (up to March 2019), and citation lists was performed to identify eligible comparative studies. All studies comparing LU versus URSL with holmium laser in proximal ureteral stones were included. Statistical analyses were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Overall, seven studies were included in analysis involving 884 patients (LU 387; URSL 497). Our meta-analysis showed that LU group had bigger stone size than URSL group (WMD 0.19 cm; P=0.001). LU group was associated with longer operative time (WMD 36.29 min; P<0.001), and length of hospital stay (WMD 1.24 d; P=0.04). However, LU group showed better initial stone-free rate (OR 11.03; P<0.001), and final stone-free rate (OR 22.37; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in all complications (RR 1.06; P=0.76). While, LU group had fewer Clavien Dindo score ≥3 complications (RR 0.21; P=0.002), fewer ureteral stricture (RR 0.26; P=0.04), and lower need of auxiliary procedures (RR 0.09; P<0.001) compared with URSL group.
CONCLUSIONS: LU could provide a higher stone-free rate and fewer severe complications compared with URSL with holmium laser for large proximal ureteral stones. More importantly, LU could also reduce the postoperative ureteral stricture rate.


KEY WORDS: Ureterolithiasis; Lithotripsy, laser; Urethral stricture

top of page