Endoscopic balloon dilation vs ureteral reimplantation for the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter : a meta-analysis of case series studies

Kunlin Yang,Gang Wang,Wenlong Zhong,Xuesong Li,Lin Yao,Zheng Zhang,Zhisong,He,Liqun Zhou
2019-01-01
Abstract:Objective: This essay is to evaluate the clinical efficacy and complication rates of endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) vs ureteral reimplantation (UR) in the treatment of primary obstructive megaureter (POM) based on the current status of the literature. Materials and methods: A systematic literature search through PubMed, Science Direct, the Cochrane Library was performed. The inclusion criteria were: 1) patients with POM, 2) use of EBD or UR as the first treatment, 3) each case series study not less than one patient, 4) the clinical efficacy was reported. The complication rates were also quantified from the available studies. Any study with incomplete data or repeat data was excluded. A proportional meta-analysis was performed on both outcomes by a random-effect model. Results: Forty-three studies (10 studies for EBD, 33 studies for UR) were included. The pooled proportion of clinical efficacy was 92% in EBD therapy from a total 169 of POMs. There was significant heterogeneity (I2 = 54.9%) between the studies showing the inconsistency of clinical and methodological aspects. The pooled proportion of clinical efficacy was 92% in UR therapy from a total 631 POMs. There was no heterogeneity (I2 = 24.5%) between the studies. The complication rate of UR seemed lower than that of EBD (6.1% vs 12.0%), but with no statistically significant difference. Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that both EBD and UR have similar efficacy for POM. However, random controlled clinical trials are urgently needed to determine which procedure is the most suitable for the treatment of POM.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?