Comparison of efficacy and safety of open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy for ureteral stone management: A systematic review and meta-analysis
View abstract on PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.Open proximal ureterolithotomy is faster, but laparoscopic surgery offers less pain and shorter recovery for ureteral stones. Both surgical methods show comparable bleeding and complication rates.
Area Of Science
- Urology
- Surgical Oncology
- Minimally Invasive Surgery
Background
- Proximal ureteral stones often require surgical intervention when non-invasive methods fail.
- Open and laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy are surgical options for impacted stones.
- No systematic reviews have directly compared these two surgical approaches.
Purpose Of The Study
- To compare the efficacy and safety of open versus laparoscopic proximal ureterolithotomy.
- To evaluate operative time, blood loss, pain, hospital stay, recovery, and complications.
Main Methods
- Systematic literature search adhering to PRISMA guidelines across five major databases.
- Meta-analysis using random-effects or fixed-effects models to compare outcomes.
- Inclusion of two randomized controlled trials and four observational cohort studies (386 participants).
Main Results
- Open surgery demonstrated significantly shorter operative times (MD: 26.63 minutes, p<0.0001).
- Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy resulted in lower pain scores (MD: -2.53, p<0.00001), shorter hospital stays (MD: -2.40 days, p=0.03), and faster recovery (MD: -9.67 days, p<0.00001).
- No significant differences were observed in intraoperative blood loss or overall complication rates between the two approaches.
Conclusions
- Open proximal ureterolithotomy offers a time advantage in surgical procedures.
- Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy provides superior outcomes in terms of reduced postoperative pain, shorter hospital stays, and quicker recovery.
- Both surgical techniques are comparable regarding intraoperative bleeding and complication profiles.

