科研速览 · Science Skim继续刷下去 · Keep skimming →
◆ Urology journal2026-09-20

Clinical Efficacy of Ureteroscopy Versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in the Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones (>1 cm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Erping Wang, Peng Tang, Chen Chen

一句话结论 · In one sentence

Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy provides higher stone-free rates and fewer complications for large proximal ureteral stones, but entails longer operative time, extended hospitalization, and increased postoperative pain. However, the pooled estimates predominantly derive from older trials lacking contemporary ureteroscopic technologies (e.g., high-power lasers, suction access sheaths). Thus, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy represents a viable alternative primarily where modern ureteroscopic equipment is unavailable or contraindicated.

原始摘要(英文原文)· Original abstract
PURPOSE: Large proximal ureteral stones (>1 cm) present significant therapeutic challenges due to high complication risks and technical complexities. Current guidelines provide no clear preference between ureteroscopic lithotripsy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteral stones, and the optimal surgical approach remains debated. This meta-analysis therefore compares the clinical efficacy and safety of ureteroscopy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy using randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedical Literature Database from their inception to July 12, 2026, for RCTs comparing the clinical efficacy of ureteroscopy and laparoscopic ureterolithotomy for large proximal ureteral calculi (>1 cm). Data from the included RCTs were statistically analyzed using Review Manager 5.2 software. RESULTS: A total of 11 RCTs involving 1300 patients were included. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy showed significantly higher immediate (odds ratio [OR] = 8.06, P < .001) and final (OR = 8.56, P < .001) stone-free rates, but longer operative time (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 1.28, P = .01), longer hospital stay (SMD = 1.67, P < .001), and higher postoperative pain scores (SMD = 0.76, P < .001) compared with ureteroscopy. Postoperative complication rates were significantly lower with laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (OR = 0.43, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy provides higher stone-free rates and fewer complications for large proximal ureteral stones, but entails longer operative time, extended hospitalization, and increased postoperative pain. However, the pooled estimates predominantly derive from older trials lacking contemporary ureteroscopic technologies (e.g., high-power lasers, suction access sheaths). Thus, laparoscopic ureterolithotomy represents a viable alternative primarily where modern ureteroscopic equipment is unavailable or contraindicated.
读原文 · Read the paper ↗

AI 追问PRO

登录后使用 AI 追问

讨论区

登录后参与讨论

相关论文 · Related

Clinical Efficacy of Ureteroscopy Versus Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy in the Treatment of Large Proximal Ureteral Stones (>1 cm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. — 科研速览 Science Skim