PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

Use of the ureteral access sheath during ureteroscopy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

  • Jian Huang,
  • Zhijian Zhao,
  • Jad Khaled AlSmadi,
  • Xiongfa Liang,
  • Fangling Zhong,
  • Tao Zeng,
  • Weizhou Wu,
  • Tuo Deng,
  • Yongchang Lai,
  • Luhao Liu,
  • Guohua Zeng,
  • Wenqi Wu

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193600
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 2
p. e0193600

Abstract

Read online

The debate still rages on for the usefulness of ureteral access sheath (UAS). Therefore, a meta-analysis to discuss the effects of applying UAS during ureteroscopy was performed. The protocol for the review is available on PROSPERO (CRD42017052327). A literature search was conducted up to November, 2017 using the Web of science, PUBMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The quality of articles was assessed by the Jadad scale and Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were used to evaluate publication bias. Effect sizes were calculated by pooled odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs). Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to explore the origin of heterogeneity. Eight trials with a total of 3099 patients and 3127 procedures were identified. Results showed no significant difference in stone-free rate (SFR) (OR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.52-1.33, P = 0.45), intraoperative complications (OR = 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-7.69, P = 0.88), operative time (MD = 4.09, 95% CI -15.08-23.26, P = 0.68) and hospitalization duration (MD = -0.13, 95% CI -0.32-0.06, P = 0.18). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher in UAS group (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00, P = 0.02). Evidence from meta-analysis indicated that the use of UAS during ureteroscopy did not manifest advantages. However, given the intrinsic restrictions of the quality of selected articles, more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to update the findings of this analysis.