Pyeloplasty in Adults With Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction in Poorly Functioning Kidneys: A Systematic Review
Carregando...
Citações na Scopus
5
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2021
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
Citação
UROLOGY, v.156, p.E66-E73, 2021
Resumo
OBJECTIVES To systematically summarize the available evidence concerning the impact of pyeloplasty on symptoms and differential renal function (DRF) in adults with unilateral UPJO in poorly functioning kidneys (PFK), and to identify potential predictors of kidney function recovery that could help clinicians select candidates for pyeloplasty. METHODS A literature search (MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry) and systematic review were performed up to September 2020 according to the PRISMA guidelines. PFK were defined as a baseline DRF =30% on renal scintigraphy. The primary endpoints were symptom relief and postoperative scintigraphic DRF. Predictors of kidney function recovery were evaluated and compared among studies. RESULTS Nine studies comprising 731 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included for evidence synthesis. A DRF increase >5% occurred in 13.3%-53.8% of 160 patients with a pre- and postoperative renal scan. Symptoms improved in 73.3%-93.3% of 141 adults after pyeloplasty. Neither patient's age, baseline DFR, comorbidities, degree of hydronephrosis, kidney parenchymal thickness, nor kidney biopsy findings consistently predicted a significant DRF increase among 375 patients undergoing pyeloplasty. CONCLUSION Based on a low level of evidence, pyeloplasty may relieve symptoms and stabilize kidney function in adults with UPJO in PFK. A significant number of patients showed a DRF increase >5%, yet no consistent predictor of kidney function recovery was identified. Until more evidence becomes available, pyeloplasty could be considered for selected cases after accounting for the risks of a failure requiring a future nephrectomy. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc.
Palavras-chave
Referências
- Autorino R, 2014, EUR UROL, V65, P430, DOI 10.1016/j.eururo.2013.06.053
- Aziz MA, 2002, EUR J PEDIATR SURG, V12, P304, DOI 10.1055/s-2002-35956
- Bansal R, 2012, J PEDIATR UROL, V8, P25, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.12.012
- Bhat GS, 2012, UROLOGY, V79, P321, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2011.10.018
- Castagnetti M, 2008, BJU INT, V102, P862, DOI 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2008.07597.x
- Elbaset MA, 2019, UROLOGY, V131, P234, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2019.05.030
- Gnech M, 2019, J PEDIATR UROL, V15, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.05.032
- Rivas JG, 2014, CENT EUR J UROL, V67, P210, DOI 10.5173/ceju.2014.02.art22
- Gupta DK, 2001, UROLOGY, V57, P547, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)01046-3
- Harraz AM, 2014, UROL INT, V93, P403, DOI 10.1159/000357625
- HIGGINS JPT, 2011, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA, V0001
- Li XD, 2018, UROL INT, V100, P209, DOI 10.1159/000486425
- Liberati A, 2009, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V339, DOI 10.1136/bmj.b2700
- Madi R, 2008, UROLOGY, V71, P677, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.070
- Menon P, 2016, J PEDIATR UROL, V12, DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2015.12.013
- Nascimento B, 2021, INT UROL NEPHROL, V53, P269, DOI 10.1007/s11255-020-02626-4
- Nayyar R, 2016, UROLOGY, V92, P132, DOI 10.1016/j.urology.2016.02.045
- Nishi M, 2016, J ENDOUROL, V30, P1214, DOI 10.1089/end.2016.0553
- Ortapamuk H, 2003, ANN NUCL MED, V17, P663, DOI 10.1007/BF02984972
- Singla N, 2016, CAN J UROL, V23, P8457
- Wagner M, 2008, EUR J PEDIATR SURG, V18, P156, DOI 10.1055/s-2008-1038445
- Wells G., 2020, NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCA