4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

A meta-analysis of surgical practice patterns in the endoscopic management of ureteroceles

期刊

JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 176, 期 4, 页码 1871-1877

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(06)00601-X

关键词

ureter; urogenital abnormalities; ureterocele; cysts; endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: We examined the contribution of patient features on reoperation after transurethral incision or puncture in children with ureteroceles. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was accomplished using Medline and article bibliographies to obtain articles related to endoscopic management of ureteroceles in English, Spanish, Italian, French and Japanese. Exposures of interest were ureterocele position and anatomy, and preoperative reflux. The outcome was secondary operation. Meta-analysis was done using Mantel-Haenszel calculations. Results: Meta-analysis of 10 studies demonstrated that ectopic ureteroceles are associated with significantly greater reoperation rates than intravesical ureteroceles in patients undergoing ureterocele incision. This remains true with longer followup and systematic ureterocele incision/puncture, in neonates and in patients with single and duplex collecting systems. In addition, a meta-analysis of 3 studies showed that patients with duplex system ureteroceles are more likely to require subsequent operation. A third meta-analysis of 7 studies showed that preoperative reflux increases the risk of reoperation after ureterocele incision. More than 1 risk factor did not appear to increase the risk of secondary operation. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first systematic review of endoscopic ureterocele management. It suggests that ectopic ureterocele location, duplex renal systems and preoperative reflux are proxies for trigonal anatomical distortion, rather than independent risk factors for a secondary operation after incision. Findings reinforce the importance of considering these variables when making management decision in children with ureteroceles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据