Meta-Analysis of the Use of Double-J Stents Prior to Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

张宇龙,潘慧,马彬,杨克虎

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-5144.2010.03.011

2010-01-01

Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Abstract:Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of the stentless versus double-J (DJ) stent for renal pelvic stone before extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy,and to guidance for clinical practice.Methods We searched the electronic bibliographic databases, including Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, CBMdisc, VIP, CNKI and WANGFANG to assemble the RCT of double-J (D-J) stent for renal pelvic stone before extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.Retrieval time is April 2009.Data were extracted and evaluated by two reviewers independently with a designed extraction form.The RevMan 5.0 software was used for data analysis.Results Four randomized trials involving 424 patients were included.The results of meta-analyses indicated:The clearance rate after three months was [WMD=1.72, 95% CI (0.95,3.10)], the incidence of steintrasse [WMD=0.77, 95% CI (0.27,2.20)], the incidence of pain [WMD=0.71, 95% CI (0.26,1.91)] and the incidence of hematuria.[WMD =0.26, 95% CI (0.04,1.92)], and the incidence of voiding dysfunction [WMD=0.23, 95% CI (0.14,0.39)].Conclusion No statistically significant difference between stentless versus D-J stent before extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy is found for the incidence of clearance rate, steinstrasse and pain hematuria, D-J stent didn't bring better prognosis to patients.What's worse, in D-J stent group, the incidence of voiding dysfunction raises.There is a moderate possibility of selection bias, performance bias and publication bias in this review, because of the small number of the included studies, which weakens the strength of the evidence of our results.Better evidence from more high-quality randomized controlled trials is needed.