PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The incidence of urolithiasis is increasing year by year. Ureteral stents are a popular treatment option for this condition. Efforts to improve the material and structure of stents to increase comfort and reduce complications have led to the introduction of magnetic stents.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate differences in removal efficiency and safety for magnetic and conventional stents.
UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Data were extracted according to the PRISMA principles. We collected and combined data from randomized controlled trials on magnetic versus conventional stents to evaluate the efficiency of their removal and the associated effects. Data synthesis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 tests. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. Key metrics included the stent removal time, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, and Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) scores for various domains.
UNASSIGNED: Seven studies were included in the review. We found that magnetic stents had a shorter removal time (mean difference [MD] -8.28 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.6 to -0.95; p = 0.03) and their removal was associated with less pain (MD -3.01 points, 95% CI -3.83 to -2.19; p < 0.01) in comparison to conventional stents. USSQ scores for urinary symptoms and sexual matters were higher for magnetic than for conventional stents. There were no other differences between the stent types.
UNASSIGNED: Magnetic ureteral stents have the advantages of a shorter removal time, less pain during removal, and low cost in comparison to conventional stents.
UNASSIGNED: For patients undergoing treatment of urinary stones, a thin tube called a stent is often temporarily inserted in the tube between the kidney and the bladder to allow stones to pass. Magnetic stents can be removed without any need for a second surgical procedure. Our review of studies comparing two types of stents suggests that magnetic stents are superior to conventional stents in terms of efficiency and comfort during removal.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate differences in removal efficiency and safety for magnetic and conventional stents.
UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Data were extracted according to the PRISMA principles. We collected and combined data from randomized controlled trials on magnetic versus conventional stents to evaluate the efficiency of their removal and the associated effects. Data synthesis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and heterogeneity was evaluated using I2 tests. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. Key metrics included the stent removal time, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, and Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ) scores for various domains.
UNASSIGNED: Seven studies were included in the review. We found that magnetic stents had a shorter removal time (mean difference [MD] -8.28 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.6 to -0.95; p = 0.03) and their removal was associated with less pain (MD -3.01 points, 95% CI -3.83 to -2.19; p < 0.01) in comparison to conventional stents. USSQ scores for urinary symptoms and sexual matters were higher for magnetic than for conventional stents. There were no other differences between the stent types.
UNASSIGNED: Magnetic ureteral stents have the advantages of a shorter removal time, less pain during removal, and low cost in comparison to conventional stents.
UNASSIGNED: For patients undergoing treatment of urinary stones, a thin tube called a stent is often temporarily inserted in the tube between the kidney and the bladder to allow stones to pass. Magnetic stents can be removed without any need for a second surgical procedure. Our review of studies comparing two types of stents suggests that magnetic stents are superior to conventional stents in terms of efficiency and comfort during removal.
摘要：
■尿石症的发病率逐年上升。输尿管支架是这种情况的流行治疗选择。改进支架的材料和结构以增加舒适度和减少并发症的努力导致了磁性支架的引入。
■评估磁性和常规支架在去除效率和安全性方面的差异。
■本研究是根据系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）的首选报告项目进行和报告的。根据PRISMA原则提取数据。我们收集并结合了有关磁性支架与常规支架的随机对照试验的数据，以评估其移除效率和相关效果。使用RevMan5.4.1进行数据合成，并使用I2检验评估异质性。还进行了敏感性分析。关键指标包括支架移除时间，视觉模拟量表（VAS）疼痛评分，不同领域的输尿管支架症状问卷(USSQ)评分。
■七项研究被纳入审查。我们发现磁性支架的取出时间较短（平均差[MD]-8.28分钟，95％置信区间[CI]-15.6至-0.95；p=0.03），它们的去除与较少的疼痛相关（MD-3.01分，与常规支架相比，95%CI-3.83至-2.19；p<0.01）。磁性支架的尿液症状和性问题的USSQ评分高于常规支架。支架类型之间没有其他差异。
■磁性输尿管支架具有移除时间短的优点，去除过程中疼痛减轻，与传统支架相比，成本低。
■对于接受泌尿系结石治疗的患者，称为支架的细管通常暂时插入肾脏和膀胱之间的管中，以允许结石通过。磁性支架可以在不需要第二外科手术的情况下被移除。我们对两种类型支架的比较研究的回顾表明，磁性支架在移除过程中的效率和舒适性方面优于常规支架。
■评估磁性和常规支架在去除效率和安全性方面的差异。
■本研究是根据系统评价和荟萃分析（PRISMA）的首选报告项目进行和报告的。根据PRISMA原则提取数据。我们收集并结合了有关磁性支架与常规支架的随机对照试验的数据，以评估其移除效率和相关效果。使用RevMan5.4.1进行数据合成，并使用I2检验评估异质性。还进行了敏感性分析。关键指标包括支架移除时间，视觉模拟量表（VAS）疼痛评分，不同领域的输尿管支架症状问卷(USSQ)评分。
■七项研究被纳入审查。我们发现磁性支架的取出时间较短（平均差[MD]-8.28分钟，95％置信区间[CI]-15.6至-0.95；p=0.03），它们的去除与较少的疼痛相关（MD-3.01分，与常规支架相比，95%CI-3.83至-2.19；p<0.01）。磁性支架的尿液症状和性问题的USSQ评分高于常规支架。支架类型之间没有其他差异。
■磁性输尿管支架具有移除时间短的优点，去除过程中疼痛减轻，与传统支架相比，成本低。
■对于接受泌尿系结石治疗的患者，称为支架的细管通常暂时插入肾脏和膀胱之间的管中，以允许结石通过。磁性支架可以在不需要第二外科手术的情况下被移除。我们对两种类型支架的比较研究的回顾表明，磁性支架在移除过程中的效率和舒适性方面优于常规支架。
