Skip to main content
Download PDF

Outcomes of ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stent for pregnancy with urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Urology volume 22, Article number: 150 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the outcomes of internal ureteral stents in comparison with ureteroscopy (URS) for pregnant women with urolithiasis.

Data sources

Relevant studies published from January 1980 to June 2022 were identified through systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library.

Methods of study selection

A total of 499 studies were initially identified. We included pregnant women in any stages of gestation who underwent double-J (D-J) stent insertion only or ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis; for a study to be included, the number of participants needed to exceed 10. This systematic review was registered on the PROSPERO website (Reference: CRD42020195607).

Results

A total of 25 studies were identified with 131 cases undergoing serial stenting and 789 cases undergoing URS. The pooled operative success rate was 97% for D-J stent insertion and 99% for URS. Only a few patients passed stones spontaneously after serial D-J stenting. The pooled stone free rate (SFR) in URS operations was about 91%. For internal ureteral stent therapy, the rate of normal fertility outcomes was 99%, although the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 45%. For group receiving URS treatment, the rate of normal fertility outcome was 99% and the pooled incidence of complications was approximately 1%. However, the pooled rate of premature birth and abortion were the similar between the two groups (< 1%); the rate of serious complications was also similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Although internal ureteral stents may cause more minor complications, both ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stents showed had low rates of adverse effects on fertility outcomes when used to treat pregnant women with symptomatic urolithiasis. Evidence suggests that URS may have a greater advantage for pregnant patients with urinary stones when conditions permit. Since, it has been proven to be safe and effective, internal ureteral stents could be considered in emergency or other special situations.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The incidence of pregnant women with symptomatic urinary tract stones is reported to range from 1 in 2000 to 1 in 200 [1]. Symptomatic urolithiasis can lead to renal colic, urinary tract infection and ureteral obstruction, thus, creating significant morbidity and potential mortality for both the mother and the fetus. The main complications are pre-term delivery and premature rupture of the membranes; this can create serious health risks for the fetus [2, 3]. It is important for urologists and obstetricians to be aware of how to manage this condition.

When managing a pregnant patient with urolithiasis, conservative management is favoured where possible. Surgical intervention is available for those that do not improve with conservative measures [4]. Ureteroscopy (URS) and internal ureteral stents are the most widely used treatments for pregnant females with symptomatic urolithiasis [5]. The insertion of a double-J (D-J) stent until definitive treatment during the postpartum period is a temporary measure and studies relating to this procedure are scarce. With continuous advancement in endoscopic technology and endourological techniques, URS has become the first-line treatment for the management of ureteric stones in pregnancy. Although the latest 2020 European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines recommends URS as a reasonable alternative option [6], there is still a lack of evidential evaluation for URS in comparison with internal ureteral stents. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we provide an up-to-date comparison between the outcomes of internal ureteral stent and URS treatments for pregnant women with urolithiasis.

Methods

We performed a systematic review according to a pre-determined protocol which was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [7]. We registered our systematic review on the PROSPERO website (www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd, registration number: CRD42020195607). Two reviewers independently undertook the literature search (XJ and BL), assessment for eligibility (XJ and BL), data extraction (YS and WT) and qualitative assessment (DW and YX). Any inconsistencies between the two reviewers were reviewed by a third reviewer (LZ) and resolved by consensus. If data sources were duplicated in more than one study, only the original study was included in the meta-analysis as per consensus among all three reviewers (XJ, BL and LZ).

The definition of PICOS used in this study

Participants: Pregnant women of any gestation with urolithiasis.

Intervention: D-J stent insertion only.

Comparators (controls): URS operation for lithotripsy/stone extraction/exploration.

Outcome: Fertility results and complications.

Study design: RCTs and observational studies (case–control, cross-sectional and cohort) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were included if they (1) Featured pregnant women in any stage of pregnancy and underwent D-J stent insertion only or ureteroscopy for the treatment of urolithiasis, (2) Had been published between January 1980 and June 2022, and (3) Featured more than 10 participants.

Studies were excluded if they (1) Were reviews, comments, letters, guidelines, or meta-analyses (2) Lacked data relating to pregnancy or interventions, (3) lacked photography, equipment evaluation or diagnosis criteria for urolithiasis in pregnancy, (4) Involved research on neonates, (5) Involved physiological hydronephrosis without stone disease, and (6) If they featured extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrostomy or other treatments for pregnancy with urolithiasis.

Search strategy

We conducted a literature search using PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library of articles published from January 1980 to June 2022. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms were used in conjunction with the following keywords: (Pregnanc* or Pregnancy or Pregnant or Gestation* or Pregnant woman or Mother*) AND (Urinary Calcul* OR Urinary Calculi OR Urinary Calculus OR Urinary Stone* OR Urinary Tract Stone* OR Ureteral Calcul* OR Ureteral Calculi OR Ureteral Calculus OR Kidney Calcul* OR Kidney Calculi OR Kidney Calculus OR Nephrolith OR Renal Calcul* OR Renal Calculi OR Renal Calculus OR Kidney Stone* OR Staghorn Calcul* OR Staghorn Calculi OR Staghorn Calculus OR Urinary Lithiasis) AND (Ureteroscopies OR Ureteroscopic OR Ureteroscopic Surgical OR Ureteroscopic Surgical Procedure* OR Ureteroscopic Surgery OR Ureteroscopy) AND (Double-J stent OR Ureteral stent OR Ureteral double-J stent OR Ureteral D-J stent OR Double J ureteral stent OR D-J ureteral stent OR stent OR D-J stent). Full search strings are presented in Additional file 1: Table S1. References from relevant articles, editorials, conference abstracts, letters, and reviews were thoroughly reviewed to identify additional studies. Full manuscripts of every article with a relevant title and abstract were then reviewed for eligibility.

Data extraction and qualitative assessment

Two reviewers (YS, WT) independently extracted the following study-level characteristics from each eligible study: first author, year of publication, country where the study was conducted, journal, study period, age, trimester, diagnose method, stone location and size, anaesthetic method, intervention and sample size, operation success rate, stone free rate (SFR), fertility outcome, complications and follow-up pattern. Two groups were set as different treatment procedures: an internal ureteral stent (D-J stent) therapy group and a URS group. Fertility outcomes included normal delivery, cesarean section, premature labor, abortion and others (which are listed in the tables below). Final fertility results were used to assess treatments, and only premature labor and abortion were considered as serious fertility outcomes (which imply failure to save the fetus). Fertility outcomes and complications were also assessed with the Clavien-Dindo classification, as shown in Additional file 1: Table S2. A Clavien-Dindo classification of III-V was regarded as a serious complication.

We applied the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) quality assessment tool to evaluate the quality of the selected observational studies. This tool was used to measure key aspects of the methodology in selected studies with regards to design quality and the risk of biased estimates based on three design criteria: (1) Selection of study participants, (2) Comparability of study groups, and (3) The assessment of outcome and exposure with a star system (with a maximum of 9 stars). We judged studies that received a score of 7–9 stars to be of a low risk of bias, studies that scored 4–6 stars to be of a medium risk, and those that scored 3 or less to be of a high risk of bias. A funnel plot was used to assess publication bias. Any disagreement on the data extraction and quality assessment of the studies were resolved through comprehensive discussion (DW, YX and LZ).

Statistical analysis

Study-specific prevalence rate estimates were combined using a random-effects model that considered within-study and between-study variations. Corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted directly from articles where available. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was evaluated using Cochran’s Q test and the I2 statistic, with values of 25%, 50%, and 75% representing low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively. The criterion for identifying heterogeneity was P < 0.05 for the Q test.

An estimation of publication bias was evaluated by Begg’s funnel plot, in which the standard error (SE) of the log odds ratio (OR) of each study was plotted against its log OR. An asymmetrical plot suggested potential publication bias. Egger's linear regression test was used to evaluate funnel plot asymmetry on the natural logarithm scale of the rates. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata (version 14.2; StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas). All P values were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Selection of studies

A detailed PRISMA flow diagram showing the literature search and inclusion criteria is given in Fig. 1. A total of 499 studies were initially identified with this literature search (144 from PubMed, 161 from Embase, 153 from Web of Science and 41 from Cochrane Library). Of these, 215 studies were excluded due to duplication and 233 were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts. Then, 26 other studies were excluded after full-text review. Finally, a total of 25 studies were identified as eligible for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of study selection for meta-analysis

Full size image

The time span of the 25 studies included in this analysis was 1995–2018, and the research period of cases ranged from 1984 to 2016. Common information from publications is shown in Table 1. Of the 25 studies, one was from Norway [8], one from Italy [9], two from America [10], one from Brazil [11], one from Pakistan [12], four from Egypt [13, 20, 27, 29], five from China [14, 22, 28, 30, 32], six from Turkey [15,16,17,18, 21, 25], two from Iran [23, 31], one from Iraq [24] and one from Romania [26]. The age range of the patients involved was 16 to 41 years and urolithiasis occurred most often in the second trimester. Ultrasound was the most commonly used diagnostic method. The most common sites for calculi were the distal ureter, medium ureter and proximal ureter. The mean stone size was between 6 and 17 mm.

Table 1 Summary of characteristic for studies included in the meta-analysis
Full size table

Subgroup analysis and meta-analysis

Only two studies involved D-J stent insertion only [10, 24]; 19 studies involved URS operations [8, 9, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 23, 25, 26, 29,30,31], and four involved both procedures [22, 27, 28, 32]. A total of 131 cases involved internal ureteral stents only and 789 cases underwent URS operations. Common results are shown in tables and occurrence rates (ORs) were calculated and compared by meta-analysis.

Detailed data of internal ureteral stent therapy was showed in Table 2. The most commonly used form of anaesthesia was local. The pooled operation success rate was 97% [Fig. 2; 95% CI: 0.94–1.01]. Only one related study [22] mentioned a stone passing spontaneously in three patients; this was reported as an accident situation. The pooled ORs for a normal fertility outcome was 99% [Fig. 3; 95% CI: 0.99–1.01] and the pooled Ors for an adverse pregnant outcome (premature and abortion) was < 1% [Fig. 4; 95% CI: 0–0.02]. The pooled Ors for overall complications was 45% [Fig. 5; 95% CI: 0.19–0.70] although the pooled Ors for serious complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V) was < 1% [Fig. 6; 95% CI: 0–0].

Table 2 Summary of details for D-J stent therapy group
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Meta-analysis about operation success rate in D-J stent therapy group and URS group

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Meta-analysis about normal fertility outcome in D-J stent therapy group and URS group

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Meta-analysis about adverse pregnant outcome (premature and abortion) in D-J stent therapy group and URS group

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Meta-analysis about overall complications in D-J stent therapy group and URS group

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Meta-analysis about Clavien-Dindo III-V complications in D-J stent therapy group and URS group

Full size image

Detailed data relating to URS therapy is shown in Table 3. General anaesthesia and spinal anaesthesia was widely used. The pooled operation success rate was 99% [Fig. 2; 95% CI: 0.98–1]. The pooled SFR was 91% [95% CI: 0.88–0.95]. The pooled Ors for a normal fertility outcome was 99% [Fig. 3; 95% CI: 0.99–1] while the pooled Ors for an adverse pregnant outcome was < 1% [Fig. 4; 95% CI: 0.01–0.02]. The pooled Ors for overall complications was < 1% [Fig. 5; 95% CI: 0.01–0.02] and the pooled Ors for serious complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V) was < 1% [Fig. 6; 95% CI: 0–0].

Table 3 Summary of details for URS group
Full size table

Meta-analysis indicated that there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity between the two treatments with regards to operation success rate (Fig. 2, I2 = 12.1%, P = 0.280), normal fertility outcome (Fig. 3, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.989) and adverse pregnant outcome (Fig. 4, I2 = 0.0%, P = 1.000). However, overall, complications for internal ureteral stent therapy were more common than for URS (Fig. 5, I2 = 91.0%, P < 0.001). We also analyzed pooled ORs for serious complications in the two treatments (Fig. 6). There was no evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity among the included studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 1.000).

Qualitative assessment and publication bias

The NOS tool was used to perform qualitative assessment of the selected studies to review the quality of the studies and detect possible bias (Tables 4 and 5). Of the 25 studies, eight were at a low risk of bias (7–9 stars); 16 studies were at a medium risk (4–6 stars), mainly due to bias from the representativeness of cases or controls, control definition and comparability. One study was at high risk (3 stars) mainly due to bad representativeness, lack of control and unclear control exposure. A funnel plot showed publication bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis (Begg's test with P < 0.001) (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Table 4 Newcastle–Ottawa Scale review for cohort studies from systematic review
Full size table
Table 5 Newcastle–Ottawa Scale review for case–control and cross-sectional studies from systematic review
Full size table

Discussion

From the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to investigate and compare the outcomes of ureteroscopy and serial D-J stenting therapy for pregnant females with urolithiasis. To determine the efficacy and safety of the two treatments, we analysed the available information in as much detail as possible. This meta‑analysis featured 25 studies with a total of 920 cases of urolithiasis during pregnancy. This meta‑analysis contained studies selected from several countries; as shown in Table 1, most studies originated from Asia (15 studies), followed by Africa (four studies), Europe (three studies) and America (including North and South America; three studies). Thus, this review represents a population of different ethnicities. Our analysis showed that operative success rates were almost the same for internal ureteral stents and URS (97% vs. 99%, P = 0.280). Internal ureteral stents were associated with more complications than URS (45% vs. 1%, P < 0.001); however, most complications were minor or could be adequately managed (serious complication rates were < 1% in the two groups, P = 1.000) and there was no statistical difference in normal delivery rate between the two treatments (99% vs. 99%, P = 0.989). In summary, both ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stents are safe and effective for pregnancy with symptomatic urolithiasis.

Urolithiasis in pregnancy is the most common non-obstetric reason for hospital admission; 80–90% of such cases are diagnosed in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of their pregnancy when the disease becomes symptomatic [33,34,35,36]. As the majority of calculi can be passed following the administration of intravenous fluids and analgesia, the first-line treatment for urolithiasis in pregnancy is conservative management. This is recommended by the latest guidelines from both the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA). However, if complications develop and affect fetal safety, or the patient does not experience adequate symptom relief, more aggressive treatments should be considered. Shock wave lithotripsy is absolutely contraindicated in pregnancy because of potential fetal death [37]. Percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) drainage is also not an appropriate choice as it raises the risk of septic complications and imposes the additional burden of an external drain [38]. The common utilization of the prone position and fluoroscopy also represent limitations for the use of PCN in pregnancy [39]. Therefore, internal ureteral stents and URS are the most common treatments in the clinic for pregnant patients.

Following the failure of initial conservative treatment, the insertion of a D-J stent might be a safe choice. Serial stenting for pregnancy with urolithiasis is commonly used in clinic although there are not many relevant studies. After scanning articles over the past 30 years, only six related articles were included in this meta-analysis [10, 22, 24, 27, 28, 32]. Historically, serial stenting was considered as the gold standard of surgical treatment for pregnancy with urolithiasis as it was less invasive and could be performed under local anaesthesia [40]. This amount of anaesthetic and the reduced level of surgical trauma is considered to be safer for the fetus [24]. Our meta-analysis also indicated that this treatment relieves obstruction and pain while maintaining the pregnancy. However, there are still some negative opinions. On the one hand, serial stenting may be poorly tolerated by some pregnant women as it can cause pain and reduce the quality of life. On the other hand, insertion of a D-J stent is a temporary measure; such stents require regular replacement. Furthermore, the increased concentration of calcium and urate in urine during pregnancy can led to a tendency for encrustation; thus, these invasive operations need to be performed more frequently [20, 41]. However, an increase frequency of such invasive operations also leads to an increase in complications, including UTI and stent migration [27, 32, 42]; there is also an increase in cost [39]. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the pooled ORs of complications after serial stenting was 45%. However, the pooled ORs for serious complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V) after serial stenting was < 1%. There was no evidence that serial stenting treatment was harmful for pregnancy as the pooled ORs for adverse pregnant outcomes was < 1%. Internal ureteral stents were thus proven to be safe for both the pregnant woman and the fetus.

Unlike internal ureteral stent operations, the use of URS to treat urolithiasis in pregnancy has been studied by many urologists; 23 papers were included in this meta-analysis [8, 9, 11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23, 25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. We found that the most common forms of anaesthesia were general and spinal. Although there are risks associated with anaesthesia and surgery, technological advancement provided a safeguard for perioperative safety. After systematic analysis, we calculated that the pooled ORs for complications was approximately 1% and the pooled ORs for normal fertility outcomes were 99%. Another advantage of URS was the high SFR (91%). High stone clearance rates and low complication rates made URS the recommended method in the 2020 EAU guideline. We noticed that most of cases of ureteroscopy involved the rigid option rather than the flexible option and that the choice of ureteroscope was related to the location of the stone. As shown in Table 1, most patients had stones located in the distal ureter; therefore, the rigid or semi-rigid ureteroscope was a more suitable choice.

In the latest 2020 EAU guidelines [6], URS appears to be the better selection for pregnancy with urolithiasis in comparison with internal ureteral stents while stent insertion therapy is only mentioned for symptomatic moderate-to-severe hydronephrosis during pregnancy. It appears that ureteral stent insertion is not an appropriate treatment for pregnant women with urolithiasis. However, the success of URS surgery depends on detailed preoperative preparation and stringent obstetric care. During emergencies or where there is a lack of obstetric care, an internal ureteral stent might be the better choice as it is also safe and effective and could gain time for URS later. Moreover, for pregnant females who do not want to take general anesthesia before childbirth, the insertion of a ureteral stent seems to be the only choice for relieving symptomatic urolithiasis. Urologists and obstetricians should work together to ensure the safety of the mother and fetus in such cases.

There were several inherent limitations to this meta‑analysis. First, most of the included studies were retrospective studies. This might cause inevitable methodological defects, including data bias, insufficient baseline comparison, and insufficient data collection. Urolithiasis during pregnancy is not a rare disease, but for urologists, it is not easy to handle both urolithiasis and obstetric care. After failed initial conservative treatment, such cases may become a urological emergency that requires a rapid response. Thus, well-designed RCTs are difficult to accomplish. Secondly, performance bias should also be considered. Although various centres perform similar operations, the medical equipment and medical teams are different. Surgery is a complex process; these differences may also lead to different outcomes. Furthermore, there was inevitable bias when the data were pooled. Therefore, further well-designed, prospective studies are required; these studies should take into account selection bias, performance bias and the issue of confounding. Finally, funnel plots showed certain publication bias in the included articles; however, we retained all of the studies as the sample size was small. Despite these limitations, this updated meta‑analysis provides an important clinical reference for urolithiasis during pregnancy.

Conclusion

Although internal ureteral stents may cause minor complications, both ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stents showed less adverse effects on fertility results in pregnant women with symptomatic urolithiasis. Evidence suggests that URS therapy may have a greater advantage for pregnant women with urinary stones when the condition permits. As it has been proven to be safe and effective, internal ureteral stents can be considered in emergency or other special situations.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  1. Fiadjoe P, Kannan K, Rane A. Maternal urological problems in pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;152(1):13–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pedro RN, Das K, Buchholz N. Urolithiasis in pregnancy. Int J Surg. 2016;36(Pt D):688–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Fregonesi A, Dias FG, Saade RD, Dechaalani V, Reis LO. Challenges on percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pregnancy: supine position approach through ultrasound guidance. Urol Ann. 2013;5(3):197–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hendricks SK, Ross SO, Krieger JN. An algorithm for diagnosis and therapy of management and complications of urolithiasis during pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991;172(1):49–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Blanco LT, Socarras MR, Montero RF, Diez EL, Calvo AO, Gregorio SAY, Cansino JR, Galan JA, Rivas JG. Renal colic during pregnancy: Diagnostic and therapeutic aspects: literature review. Cent Eur J Urol. 2017;70(1):93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Türk C, Neisius A, Petrik A, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Thomas K. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Eur Assoc Urol. 2020; 32.

  7. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group P-P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ulvik NM, Bakke A, Hoisaeter PA, Kramolowsky EV. Ureteroscopy in pregnancy. J Urol. 1995;154(5):1660–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Scarpa RM, De Lisa A, Usai E. Diagnosis and treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy with rigid ureteroscopes. J Urol. 1996;155(3):875–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Parulkar BG, Hopkins TB, Wollin MR, Howard PJ Jr, Lal A. Renal colic during pregnancy: a case for conservative treatment. J Urol. 1998;159(2):365–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lemos GC, El Hayek OR, Apezzato M. Rigid ureteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Int Braz J Urol. 2002;28(4):311–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rana AM, Aquil S, Khawaja AM. Semirigid ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy as definitive management of obstructive ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Urology. 2009;73(5):964–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elgamasy A, Elsherif A. Use of doppler ultrasonography and rigid ureteroscopy for managing symptomatic ureteric stones during pregnancy. BJU Int. 2010;106(2):262–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu GQ, Wang JF, Li JR, Zheng JT, Huang ZQ, Ye ZQ. Urolithiasis in pregnancy: survey in clinical epidemiology. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol Med Sci. 2011;31(2):226–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Polat F, Yesil S, Ki M, Biri H. Treatment outcomes of semirigid ureterorenoscopy and intracorporeal lithotripsy in pregnant women with obstructive ureteral calculi. Urol Res. 2011;39(6):487–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Atar M, Bozkurt Y, Soylemez H, Penbegul N, Sancaktutar AA, Bodakci MN, Hatipoglu NK, Hamidi C, Ozler A. Use of renal resistive index and semi-rigid ureteroscopy for managing symptomatic persistent hydronephrosis during pregnancy. Int J Surg. 2012;10(10):629–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bozkurt Y, Penbegul N, Soylemez H, Atar M, Sancaktutar AA, Yildirim K, Sak ME. The efficacy and safety of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi in pregnancy: our experience in 32 patients. Urol Res. 2012;40(5):531–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hoscan MB, Ekinci M, Tunckran A, Oksay T, Ozorak A, Ozkardes H. Management of symptomatic ureteral calculi complicating pregnancy. Urology. 2012;80(5):1011–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson EB, Krambeck AE, White WM, Hyams E, Beddies J, Marien T, Shah O, Matlaga B, Pais VM Jr. Obstetric complications of ureteroscopy during pregnancy. J Urol. 2012;188(1):151–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abdel-Kader MS, Tamam AA, Elderwy AA, Gad M, El-Gamal MA, Kurkar A, Safwat AS. Management of symptomatic ureteral calculi during pregnancy: experience of 23 cases. Urol Ann. 2013;5(4):241–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bozkurt Y, Soylemez H, Atar M, Sancaktutar AA, Penbegul N, Hatipoglu NK, Bodakci MN, Evsen MS. Effectiveness and safety of ureteroscopy in pregnant women: a comparative study. Urolithiasis. 2013;41(1):37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yan S, Xiang F, Song Y. Diagnosis and operative intervention for problematic ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):115–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Keshvari Shirvan M, Darabi Mahboub MR, Rahimi HR, Seyedi A. The evaluation of ureteroscopy and pneumatic lithotripsy results in pregnant women with urethral calculi. Nephrourol Mon. 2013;5(4):874–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ngai HY, Salih HQ, Albeer A, Aghaways I, Buchholz N. Double-J ureteric stenting in pregnancy: a single-centre experience from Iraq. Arab J Urol. 2013;11(2):148–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Adanur S, Ziypak T, Bedir F, Yapanoglu T, Aydin HR, Yilmaz M, Aksoy M, Ozbey I. Ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy: is this procedure safe in pregnant women with ureteral stones at different locations? Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2014;86(2):86–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Georgescu D, Multescu R, Geavlete B, Geavlete P, Chiutu L. Ureteroscopy – first-line treatment alternative in ureteral calculi during pregnancy? Chirurgia. 2014;109(2):229–32.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Teleb M, Ragab A, Dawod T, Elgalaly H, Elsayed E, Sakr A, Abdelhameed A, Maarouf A, Khalil S. Definitive ureteroscopy and intracorporeal lithotripsy in treatment of ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Arab J Urol. 2014;12(4):299–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang Z, Xu L, Su Z, Yao C, Chen Z. Invasive management of proximal ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Urology. 2014;83(4):745–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fathelbab TK, Hamid AMA, Galal EM. Ureteroscopy for treatment of obstructing ureteral calculi in pregnant women: single center experience. Afr J Urol. 2016;22(2):106–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang S, Liu G, Duo Y, Wang J, Li J, Li C. Application of ureteroscope in emergency treatment with persistent renal colic patients during pregnancy. PLoS ONE. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146597.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Abedi AR, Allameh F, Razzaghi MR, Fadavi B, Qashqai H, Najafi S, Ranjbar A, Bashirian M. The efficacy and safety of laser lithotripsy in pregnancy. J Lasers in Med Sci. 2017;8(2):84–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tan ST, Chen X, Sun M, Wu B. The comparation of effects and security of double-J stent retention and ureteroscopy lithotripsy in the treatment of symptomatic ureteral calculi during pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;227:32–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pais VM Jr, Payton AL, LaGrange CA. Urolithiasis in pregnancy. Urol Clin North Am. 2007;34(1):43–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Biyani CS, Joyce AD. Urolithiasis in pregnancy. I: pathophysiology, fetal considerations and diagnosis. BJU Int. 2002;89(8):811–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Srirangam SJ, Hickerton B, Van Cleynenbreugel B. Management of urinary calculi in pregnancy: a review. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):867–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Laing KA, Lam TB, McClinton S, Cohen NP, Traxer O, Somani BK. Outcomes of ureteroscopy for stone disease in pregnancy: results from a systematic review of the literature. Urol Int. 2012;89(4):380–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Ohmori K, Matsuda T, Horii Y, Yoshida O. Effects of shock waves on the mouse fetus. J Urol. 1994;151(1):255–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Khoo L, Anson K, Patel U. Success and short-term complication rates of percutaneous nephrostomy during pregnancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15(12):1469–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Clennon EK, Duty BD, Caughey AB. Cost-effectiveness of urolithiasis management in pregnancy. Urol Pract. 2019;6(6):337–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Valovska MTI, Pais VM. Contemporary best practice urolithiasis in pregnancy. Ther Adv Urol. 2018;10(4):127–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Choi CI, Yu YD, Park DS. Ureteral stent insertion in the management of renal colic during pregnancy. Chonnam Med J. 2016;52(2):123–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Semins MJ, Trock BJ, Matlaga BR. The safety of ureteroscopy during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2009;181(1):139–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the articles mentioned in the meta, was instrumental in defining the path of my research. And we thank International Science Editing for editing this manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the General Programs of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81970658) and the Youth Program of Shanghai Ruijin Hospital North (2020ZY06).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xingwei Jin and Boke Liu have contributed equally as co-first authors

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University, No. 197 Ruijin Er Road, Shanghai, 200025, China

    Xingwei Jin, Boke Liu, Weichao Tu, Yuan Shao & Dawei Wang

  2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Shanghai TCM College Affiliated Shu Guang Hospital, Shanghai, China

    Yunqi Xiong

  3. Monash Health, Monash Medical Centre, Clayton, VIC, 3168, Australia

    Yuanchun Wang

  4. School of Population Medicine and Public Health, Chinese Academy of Medical Science & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100730, China

    Lin Zhang

  5. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3100, Australia

    Lin Zhang

  6. Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, The University of Melbourne Centre for Cancer Research, Parkville, VIC, 3100, Australia

    Lin Zhang

Authors
  1. Xingwei Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Boke Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yunqi Xiong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yuanchun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Weichao Tu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yuan Shao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dawei Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DW and LZ contributed to the conception of the study; XJ and BL contributed significantly to analysis and assessment for eligibility; YS and WT performed the data extraction; DW and YX contributed the qualitative assessment; XJ and LZ wrote the manuscript, helped perform the analysis with constructive discussions. And YW improved the language of this article. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lin Zhang or Dawei Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval is not required for this study because it is a systematic review and meta-analysis by using the published available data.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search information, complication details, and result of publication bias.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jin, X., Liu, B., Xiong, Y. et al. Outcomes of ureteroscopy and internal ureteral stent for pregnancy with urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Urol 22, 150 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01100-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-022-01100-w

Keywords

BMC Urology

ISSN: 1471-2490

Contact us