Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis

Standard

Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis. / Yanagisawa, Takafumi; Mori, Keiichiro; Quhal, Fahad; Kawada, Tatsushi; Mostafaei, Hadi; Laukhtina, Ekaterina; Rajwa, Pawel; Sari Motlagh, Reza; Aydh, Abdulmajeed; König, Frederik; Pallauf, Maximilian; Pradere, Benjamin; Miki, Jun; Kimura, Takahiro; Egawa, Shin; Shariat, Shahrokh F.

In: BJU INT, Vol. 131, No. 5, 05.2023, p. 540-552.

Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journalSCORING: Review articleResearch

Harvard

Yanagisawa, T, Mori, K, Quhal, F, Kawada, T, Mostafaei, H, Laukhtina, E, Rajwa, P, Sari Motlagh, R, Aydh, A, König, F, Pallauf, M, Pradere, B, Miki, J, Kimura, T, Egawa, S & Shariat, SF 2023, 'Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis', BJU INT, vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 540-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15913

APA

Yanagisawa, T., Mori, K., Quhal, F., Kawada, T., Mostafaei, H., Laukhtina, E., Rajwa, P., Sari Motlagh, R., Aydh, A., König, F., Pallauf, M., Pradere, B., Miki, J., Kimura, T., Egawa, S., & Shariat, S. F. (2023). Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis. BJU INT, 131(5), 540-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15913

Vancouver

Yanagisawa T, Mori K, Quhal F, Kawada T, Mostafaei H, Laukhtina E et al. Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis. BJU INT. 2023 May;131(5):540-552. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15913

Bibtex

@article{306cb96981a04f5a8c3dfa3de02cd3cc,
title = "Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of ureteric injuries, clinical value of prophylactic ureteric stenting and impact of intra- or postoperative detection of ureteric injuries in patients treated with gynaecological or colorectal surgery.METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before September 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated the differences in the rate of ureteric injuries between laparoscopic and open surgery, prophylactic ureteric stenting or not, and those of final treatment success between intra- and postoperative detection in patients who underwent gynaecological or colorectal surgery.RESULTS: Overall, 46 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher incidence of ureteric injuries (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.62), but there was no statistically significant difference in colectomy (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). Prophylactic ureteric stenting was associated with a lower incidence of ureteric injuries during gynaecological surgery (pooled OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96). The number needed to perform ureteric stenting to prevent one ureteric injury was 224 in gynaecological surgery. On the other hand, prophylactic ureteric stenting did not reduce the risk of ureteric injuries during colorectal surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury was associated with a lower rate of complication management failure compared to postoperative detection (pooled OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41).CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be associated with a higher rate of ureteric injuries compared to an open approach. Prophylactic ureteric stenting seems to reduce this risk during gynaecological surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury during abdominal/pelvic surgery improves outcomes, suggesting the need for awareness and proactive problem identification. Further well-designed studies assessing the candidates who are more likely to benefit from prophylactic ureteric stenting including cost analysis are needed.",
author = "Takafumi Yanagisawa and Keiichiro Mori and Fahad Quhal and Tatsushi Kawada and Hadi Mostafaei and Ekaterina Laukhtina and Pawel Rajwa and {Sari Motlagh}, Reza and Abdulmajeed Aydh and Frederik K{\"o}nig and Maximilian Pallauf and Benjamin Pradere and Jun Miki and Takahiro Kimura and Shin Egawa and Shariat, {Shahrokh F}",
note = "{\textcopyright} 2022 BJU International.",
year = "2023",
month = may,
doi = "10.1111/bju.15913",
language = "English",
volume = "131",
pages = "540--552",
journal = "BJU INT",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Iatrogenic ureteric injury during abdominal or pelvic surgery: a meta-analysis

AU - Yanagisawa, Takafumi

AU - Mori, Keiichiro

AU - Quhal, Fahad

AU - Kawada, Tatsushi

AU - Mostafaei, Hadi

AU - Laukhtina, Ekaterina

AU - Rajwa, Pawel

AU - Sari Motlagh, Reza

AU - Aydh, Abdulmajeed

AU - König, Frederik

AU - Pallauf, Maximilian

AU - Pradere, Benjamin

AU - Miki, Jun

AU - Kimura, Takahiro

AU - Egawa, Shin

AU - Shariat, Shahrokh F

N1 - © 2022 BJU International.

PY - 2023/5

Y1 - 2023/5

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of ureteric injuries, clinical value of prophylactic ureteric stenting and impact of intra- or postoperative detection of ureteric injuries in patients treated with gynaecological or colorectal surgery.METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before September 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated the differences in the rate of ureteric injuries between laparoscopic and open surgery, prophylactic ureteric stenting or not, and those of final treatment success between intra- and postoperative detection in patients who underwent gynaecological or colorectal surgery.RESULTS: Overall, 46 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher incidence of ureteric injuries (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.62), but there was no statistically significant difference in colectomy (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). Prophylactic ureteric stenting was associated with a lower incidence of ureteric injuries during gynaecological surgery (pooled OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96). The number needed to perform ureteric stenting to prevent one ureteric injury was 224 in gynaecological surgery. On the other hand, prophylactic ureteric stenting did not reduce the risk of ureteric injuries during colorectal surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury was associated with a lower rate of complication management failure compared to postoperative detection (pooled OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41).CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be associated with a higher rate of ureteric injuries compared to an open approach. Prophylactic ureteric stenting seems to reduce this risk during gynaecological surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury during abdominal/pelvic surgery improves outcomes, suggesting the need for awareness and proactive problem identification. Further well-designed studies assessing the candidates who are more likely to benefit from prophylactic ureteric stenting including cost analysis are needed.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of ureteric injuries, clinical value of prophylactic ureteric stenting and impact of intra- or postoperative detection of ureteric injuries in patients treated with gynaecological or colorectal surgery.METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for articles published before September 2021 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses statement. Studies were deemed eligible if they evaluated the differences in the rate of ureteric injuries between laparoscopic and open surgery, prophylactic ureteric stenting or not, and those of final treatment success between intra- and postoperative detection in patients who underwent gynaecological or colorectal surgery.RESULTS: Overall, 46 studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Compared to open surgery, laparoscopic hysterectomy was associated with a higher incidence of ureteric injuries (pooled odds ratio [OR] 2.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71-2.62), but there was no statistically significant difference in colectomy (pooled OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.77-1.03). Prophylactic ureteric stenting was associated with a lower incidence of ureteric injuries during gynaecological surgery (pooled OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.96). The number needed to perform ureteric stenting to prevent one ureteric injury was 224 in gynaecological surgery. On the other hand, prophylactic ureteric stenting did not reduce the risk of ureteric injuries during colorectal surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury was associated with a lower rate of complication management failure compared to postoperative detection (pooled OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.41).CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic hysterectomy seems to be associated with a higher rate of ureteric injuries compared to an open approach. Prophylactic ureteric stenting seems to reduce this risk during gynaecological surgery. Intraoperative detection of a ureteric injury during abdominal/pelvic surgery improves outcomes, suggesting the need for awareness and proactive problem identification. Further well-designed studies assessing the candidates who are more likely to benefit from prophylactic ureteric stenting including cost analysis are needed.

U2 - 10.1111/bju.15913

DO - 10.1111/bju.15913

M3 - SCORING: Review article

C2 - 36196670

VL - 131

SP - 540

EP - 552

JO - BJU INT

JF - BJU INT

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 5

ER -