RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Introduction: The ureteral access sheath (UAS) is a medical device that enables repeated entrance into the ureter and collecting system during retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Its impact on stone-free rates, ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications remains controversial. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing RIRS with versus without UAS for urolithiasis management. Purpose: To compare outcomes from retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for stone extraction with or without ureteral access sheath (UAS); evaluating stone-free rate (SFR), ureteral injuries, operative time, and postoperative complications. Materials and Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in June 2024 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety outcomes of UAS use in RIRS for urolithiasis treatment. Articles published between 2014 and 2024 were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: Five RCTs comprising 466 procedures were included. Of these, 246 (52.7%) utilized UAS. The follow-up ranged from 1 week to 1 month. UAS reduced the incidence of postoperative fever (RR 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.84; p=0.009), and postoperative infection (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.83; p=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of SFR (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.99-1.11; p=0.10), ureteral injuries (RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.95-1.75; p=0.11), operative time (MD 3.56 minutes; 95% CI −4.15 to 11.27 minutes; p=0.36), or length of stay (MD 0.32 days; 95% CI −0.42 to 1.07 days; p=0.40). Conclusion: UAS leads to a lower rate of post-operative fever and infection. However, UAS did not significantly reduce or increase the SFR or the rate of ureteral injuries during RIRS for patients with urolithiasis. The use of UAS should be considered to decrease the risk of infectious complications, particularly in those who may be at higher risk for such complications.
RESUMEN
ABSTRACT Introduction Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are considered standard treatments for stage II seminoma patients; however, these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Recently, retroperitoneal lymph node dissection has emerged as an alternative strategy, and the first three phase II trials were published in 2023 with promising results. The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this surgery as an alternative treatment for stage IIA/B seminoma patients. Purpose Seminomas are the most common testicular tumors, often affecting young adult males. Standard treatments for stage II seminomas include chemotherapy and radiation therapy, but these therapies are associated with long-term toxicities. Thus, identifying alternative strategies is paramount. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the efficacy and safety of retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) for treating this condition. Methods We systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies evaluating RPLND as a primary treatment for stage II A/B seminomas. Using a random-effects model, single proportion and means and pooled 2-year recurrence-free survival rates with hazard rates and 95% CI were calculated. Results Seven studies were included, comprising 331 males with stage II seminomas. In the pooled analysis, the recurrence rate was 17.69% (95% CI 12.31-24.75), and the 2-year RFS rate was 81% (95% CI 0.77-0.86). The complication rate was 9.16% (95% CI 6.16-13.42), the Clavien-Dindo > 2 complication rate was 8.83% (95% CI 5.76-13.31), and the retrograde ejaculation rate was 7.01% (95% CI 3.54-13.40). The median operative time was 174.68 min (95% CI 122.17-249.76 min), median blood loss was 105.91 mL (95% CI 46.89-239.22 mL), and patients with no evidence of lymph node involvement ranged from 0-16%. Conclusions Primary RPLNDs for treating stage IIA/B seminomas have favorable RFS rates, with low complication and recurrence rates. These findings provide evidence that this surgery is a viable alternative therapy for these patients.