2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Balloon dilation for the treatment of male urethral strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The use of minimally invasive endoluminal treatment for urethral strictures has been a subject for debate for several decades. The aim of this study was to review and discuss the safety, efficacy and factors influencing the clinical application of balloon dilation for the treatment of male urethral strictures.

          Design

          Systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data sources

          Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched for publications published before 17 July 2022.

          Study selection

          Two independent researchers screened and assessed the results, and all clinical studies on balloon dilation for the treatment of urethral strictures in men were included.

          Data extraction and synthesis

          The success rate, rate of adverse events, International Prostate Symptom Scores, maximum uroflow (Qmax) and postvoid residual urine volume were the main outcomes. Stata V.14.0 was used for statistical analysis.

          Results

          Fifteen studies with 715 patients were ultimately included in this systematic review. The pooled results of eight studies showed that the reported success rate of simple balloon dilation for male urethral strictures was 67.07% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.92% to 77.36%). The maximum urinary flow rate at 3 months (risk ratio [RR]= 2.6510, 95% CI: 1.0681 to 4.2338, p<0.01) and the maximum urinary flow rate at 1 year (RR= 1.6637, 95% CI: 1.1837 to 2.1437, p<0.05) were significantly different after dilation. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that balloon dilation is superior to optical internal urethrotomy or direct visual internal urethrotomy (DVIU) (RR= 1.4754, 95% CI: 0.7306 to 2.9793, p=0.278).

          Conclusion

          Balloon dilation may be an intermediate step before urethroplasty and is a promising alternative therapy to simple dilation and DVIU. The balloon is a promising drug delivery tool, and paclitaxel drug-coated balloon dilation is effective in reducing retreatment rates in patients with recurrent anterior urethral strictures. The aetiology, location, length, previous treatment of urethral stricture may be associated with the efficacy of balloon dilation.

          PROSPERO registration number

          CRD42022334403.

          Related collections

          Most cited references61

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions

              Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2024
                6 February 2024
                : 14
                : 2
                : e071923
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentDepartment of Urology , Ringgold_572283Peking University First Hospital , Beijing, China
                [2 ]departmentInstitute of Urology , Ringgold_572283Peking University , Beijing, China
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Jian Lin; linjianbj@ 123456163.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7832-3051
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6151-0966
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3476-5792
                Article
                bmjopen-2023-071923
                10.1136/bmjopen-2023-071923
                10860052
                38320837
                00d818c5-d3f8-471e-854b-c643207f140c
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 January 2023
                : 22 January 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 8207032402
                Categories
                Urology
                1506
                1738
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                urology,adult urology,kidney & urinary tract disorders
                Medicine
                urology, adult urology, kidney & urinary tract disorders

                Comments

                Comment on this article