Author
Abstract
Objective: Ureterorenoscopy (URS) is a common procedure performed for renal or upper ureteric stones. Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of URS in the elderly is unclear. We conducted the first meta-analysis of literature comparing outcomes of URS between elderly and non-elderly patients. Methods: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies relevant to the review. The last date was 2nd September 2024. The elderly were defined as ≥ 65 or 60 years of age. Outcomes compared were stone-free rates (SFR), complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Results: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed that there was no difference in SFR between elderly and non-elderly groups after URS (OR: 0.96 95% CI: 0.81, 1.14 I2 = 3%). Meta-analysis failed to show any statistical significant in all complication rates (OR: 1.04 95% CI: 0.77, 1.40 I2 = 51%) as well as infectious (OR: 1.27 95% CI: 0.84, 1.92 I2 = 0%), medical (OR: 2.01 95% CI: 0.23, 17.57 I2 = 93%), surgical (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.68, 2.03 I2 = 0%) or Clavein Dindo grade ≥2 (OR: 1.02 95% CI: 0.60, 1.75 I2 = 0%) complications between elderly and non-elderly groups. Meta-analysis showed that the elderly had significantly longer LOS as compared to non-elderly patients (MD: 0.75 95% CI: 0.05, 1.45 I2 = 90%). Conclusions: URS seems to efficacious and safe in the elderly. Patients ≥60 or 65 years of age have similar SFR and complication rates as younger patients. However, LOS may be increased in the elderly. More robust studies taking into account baseline characteristics and importantly presenting rates are needed to validate the current results.
Suggested Citation
Minna Shen & Minqiang Shen, 2025.
"Efficacy and safety of ureterorenoscopy in the elderly: A systematic review axnd meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-12, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0323237
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323237
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.