Effect of preoperative alpha‐blockers on ureteroscopy outcomes: A meta‐analysis of randomised trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives This work aims to determine the efficacy and safety of preoperative alpha‐blocker therapy on ureteroscopy (URS) outcomes. Methods In this systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised trials of URS with or without preoperative alpha‐blocker therapy, outcomes included the need for ureteral dilatation, stone access failure, procedure time, residual stone rate, hospital stay, and complications. Residual stone rates were reported with and without adjustments for spontaneous stone passage, medication noncompliance, or adverse events leading to patient withdrawal. Data were analysed using random‐effects meta‐analysis and meta‐regression. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. Results Among 15 randomised trials with 1653 patients, URS was effective and safe with a stone‐free rate of 81.2% and rare (2.3%) serious complications. The addition of preoperative alpha‐blockers reduced the need for ureteral dilatation (risk ratio [RR] = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.75; p = 0.002), access failure rate (RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.57; p < 0.001), procedure time (mean difference [MD] = −6 min; 95% CI = −8 to −3; p < 0.001), risk of residual stone in the primary (RR = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.66; p < 0.001) and adjusted (RR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40 to 0.68; p < 0.001) analyses, hospital stay (MD = −0.3 days; 95% CI = −0.4 to −0.1; p < 0.001), and complication rate (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.59; p < 0.001). Alpha‐blockers increased ejaculatory dysfunction risk and were less effective for renal/proximal ureter stones. The certainty of evidence was high or moderate for all outcomes. The main limitation of the review was inconsistency in residual stone assessment methods. Conclusion While URS is an effective and safe treatment for stone disease, preoperative alpha‐blocker therapy is well tolerated and can further improve patient outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".