Does prophylactic ureteric stenting at the time of colorectal surgery reduce the risk of ureteric injury? A systematic review and meta‐analysis. (23rd January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hird, Amanda E.; Nica, Andra; Coburn, Natalie G.; Kulkarni, Girish S.; Nam, Robert K.; Gien, Lilian T.
• Is Part Of: Colorectal disease. Volume 23:Number 5(2021)
• Page Start: 1060
• Page End: 1070
• Publication Date: 2021-01-23
• Subjects: colorectal surgery -- stents -- intraoperative complications -- ureteric stent -- ureteric catheter -- prophylaxis; Colon (Anatomy) -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rectum -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.34
• DOI: 10.1111/codi.15498
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8910

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: Cystoscopic placement of ureteric stents during colorectal surgery (CRS) may aid in the intraoperative identification of the ureters and thus prevent ureteric injury, but may also be associated with prolonged operating time, increased cost and adverse events. No formal recommendations exist regarding the use of ureteric stents prior to CRS. Our aim was to determine the effect of prophylactic ureteric stent insertion on the risk of ureteric injury among adult patients undergoing CRS. Method: A systematic search using the Ovid platform was completed. The primary outcome was risk of ureteric injury. Secondary outcomes included the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), urinary tract infection (UTI), sepsis, length of stay (LOS) and mortality. The Paule–Mandel pooling and a random effects model was used to produce odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for binary outcomes. Standardized mean differences (MD) were reported for continuous variables. Analyses were completed using R3.5. Results: Nine retrospective cohort studies evaluating 98 507 patients were included. The incidence of ureteric injury was 0.6%. Overall, 5.1% of patients underwent ureteric stenting. There was no change in the odds of ureteric injury among stented patients compared with controls (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.39‐4.29, I 2 = 25%). Operating time was significantly longer (MD 49.3 min, 95% CI 35.3–63.4, I 2 = 96%) in the intervention group. There was no difference in rates of AKI, UTI, sepsis, LOS or mortality between groups. Conclusion: Given the retrospective nature of the identified studies, the benefit of prophylactic ureteric stenting remains uncertain. Prophylactic ureteric stenting was not associated with increased patient morbidity but did significantly increase operating time.