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

      Comparative analysis of holmium: YAG laser internal urethrotomy versus Cold-Knife optical internal urethrotomy in the management of urethral stricture – a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-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:

          Urethral stricture management has posed enduring challenges in urology, demanding innovative and effective treatment modalities. This study addresses the persistent issues associated with urethral strictures, focusing on the comparative evaluation of two contemporary treatment modalities: Ho: YAG Laser Internal Urethrotomy (HIU) and Cold Knife Optical Internal Urethrotomy (CIU).

          Methods:

          A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ResearchGate was conducted to identify relevant studies up to November 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed comparative studies evaluating HIU and CIU in patients with urethral stricture. Data extraction, quality assessment, and subgroup analyses were performed using standardized methods. Outcome measures included preoperative and postoperative mean the maximum urine flow rate (Qmax), mean surgical time, recurrence rates, and perioperative complications.

          Results:

          Nine articles met the inclusion criteria, and their data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.1. Forest plots were generated for preoperative and postoperative mean Qmax, mean surgical time, recurrence rates, and perioperative complications. While postoperative mean Qmax (MD −0.06; 95% CI: −0.28–0.16; P=0.60, I 2=75%) and mean surgical time (MD 2.16; 95% CI: −1.66–5.99; P=0.27, I 2=98%) showed no significant differences between HIU and CIU, a trend towards lower recurrence rates (RR 0.71; 95% CI: 0.48–1.06; P=0.09, I 2=46%) was observed with HIU but without statistical significance. Perioperative complications, particularly bleeding (RR 0.21; 95% CI: 0.08–0.53; P=0.001, I 2=0%), favored HIU over CIU. The subanalysis indicates that for the treatment of complex urethral strictures, the two surgical methods differ in terms of mean Qmax at 6 months postoperatively (MD −2.51; 95% CI: −4.10–−0.91; P=0.002, I 2=59%) and 12 months postoperatively (MD 2.62; 95% CI: 0.93–4.30; P=0.002, I 2=0%). The HIU group shows a significant decrease in recurrence rate at 12 months postoperatively (RR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21–0.92; P=0.03, I 2=0%). For short-segment urethral strictures with a length ≤1.5 cm, CIU had a shorter operative time compared to the HIU (MD 4.49; 95% CI: 3.87–5.10; P<0.00001, I 2=44%).

          Conclusion:

          Overall, both interventions demonstrated similar efficacy in improving postoperative mean Qmax, mean surgical time, and recurrence rates. However, subanalysis indicates that in the short-term, CIU is more effective than HIU in improving Qmax after complex urethral stricture surgery. In long-term Qmax follow-up after surgery, HIU is significantly higher than CIU, and HIU has a low recurrence rate. In addition, for short-segment urethral stricture (≤1.5 cm), CIU requires less time. In terms of complications, HIU has a lower risk of bleeding.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            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: not found
              • Article: not found

              Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Int J Surg
                Int J Surg
                JS9
                International Journal of Surgery (London, England)
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                1743-9191
                1743-9159
                July 2024
                3 April 2024
                : 110
                : 7
                : 4382-4392
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Urology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University
                [b ]WesternWard Operation Room, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. Address: Department of Urology, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, NO. 20 East Yuhuangding Road, Yantai 264000, Shandong, People’s Republic of China. E-mail: doctorcuiys@ 123456163.com (Y. Cui), and Tel./fax: +865 356 691 999. E-mail: 1439941172@ 123456qq.com (J. Wu).
                Article
                IJS-D-24-00243 00039
                10.1097/JS9.0000000000001384
                11254258
                38573099
                908cdb60-6247-48a8-895a-92f075015df7
                Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History
                : 19 January 2024
                : 11 March 2024
                Categories
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                TRUE
                T

                Surgery
                cold-knife,holmium laser,internal urethrotomy,recurrence and complications,urethral stricture,uroflowmetry

                Comments

                Comment on this article