Silodosin in the treatment of distal ureteric stones in children: A prospective, randomised, placebo-controlled study

Safety and efficacy of Silodosin as medical expulsive therapy after shock wave lithotripsy in paediatric patients ‍‍with renal stones

This study was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of Silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy following shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in paediatric patients with renal stones. In this prospective randomized controlled study conducted at Tanta University Hospital from January 2022 to March 2024, thirty children with a single de novo radiopaque renal pelvic stone less than 2 cm scheduled for SWL were randomized into two equal groups. Group A (n = 15) received Silodosin 4 mg once daily after the first SWL session, and Group B (n = 15) received a matching placebo. The first dose was administered on the night of the initial SWL session and continued until stone-free status was confirmed, for a maximum of 4 weeks. The stone expulsion time was set as a primary outcome, while the secondary outcomes were one-session stone-free rate (SFR), postoperative pain scores, and Silodosin related adverse events. The results showed that the mean stone expulsion time in group A (11.4 ± 1.8 days) was significantly shorter compared to group B (16.4 ± 1.6 days; P < 0.0001). One-session SFR was 86.6% in Silodosin group compared to 73.3% in Placebo group (P = 0.6). Pain visual analogue scores were significantly lower in group A (2.31 ± 1.75) than in group B (5.08 ± 2.43; P = 0.003). No severe drug-related adverse effects were reported in either group. In conclusion, Silodosin appears to be a safe and effective adjunct to SWL in paediatric patients, significantly reducing stone expulsion time and postoperative pain. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Summary of the clinical practice guideline for the management of urinary stones, third edition

This third edition of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Urinary stones (2023) has been developed under the leadership of the Japanese Urological Association, the Japanese Society of Endourology and Robotics, and the Japanese Society on Urolithiasis Research. This revision adheres to the Minds Manual for Guideline Development (2017) and incorporates new findings from a nationwide survey conducted in 2015, which highlighted the epidemiological characteristics of urolithiasis in Japan since the previous guidelines were published in 2013. A significant advancement in this edition is the systematic review (SR) methodology applied to formulate recommendations for 12 clinical questions (CQs). Both quantitative and qualitative SRs were performed, leading to recommendations determined through consensus among 21 members of the guideline development group. Additionally, nine algorithms were created to support clinical decision-making based on these findings. Topics not addressed by the CQs, considered as foundational knowledge, are outlined in an "Explanation of Related Matters" section, which includes 26 items. This article provides an overview of these guidelines. This section ensures that practitioners have access to comprehensive information, covering aspects of urolithiasis management beyond the scope of the systematic reviews. This article provides an overview of the guidelines, emphasizing their relevance and importance in improving the management and treatment outcomes for patients with urinary stones. The guidelines are designed to be a practical resource for clinicians, facilitating evidence-based care in the evolving landscape of urolithiasis treatment.

The use of alpha-adrenergic antagonists in pediatric nephrolithiasis: a systematic review

Objective

To evaluate existing clinical evidence for the efficacy of alpha blockers in the management of pediatric stone disease.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cohort and randomized control trials of patients less than 18 years old with kidney stones managed with alpha-adrenergic antagonists were included. Outcomes included stone expulsion time, stone passage rate, mean number of pain episodes, and mean need for analgesics. We performed data extraction of the selected articles, and results were assimilated and synthesized qualitatively. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was conducted by two independent reviewers.

Results

Of 257 relevant studies, 9 studies with 1,039 patients were included. Six studies measured stone expulsion time, with 5 studies noting statistically significant decreases in stone expulsion time for the treatment group compared to the control. Seven studies measured the stone expulsion rate, and 5 reported a statistically significant increased expulsion rate in the treatment group. Four studies reported a decrease in the mean number of pain episodes in the treatment group and two studies showed a decreased analgesic requirement compared to control. Two studies found alpha blockers not superior to watchful waiting after shock wave lithotripsy. Risk of bias was high in some studies, primarily due to incomplete reporting on methodology and study design.

Conclusions

Alpha blockers are supported by a growing body of evidence to be effective against nephrolithiasis in children, however large-scale, well-designed studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=330068, PROSPERO (CRD42022330068).

Standardization of the management of pediatric urolithiasis in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

The incidence of urolithiasis in the pediatric population is rising and medical expulsive therapy (MET) using alpha-adrenergic antagonists has been found to be effective in aiding in the passage of ureteral stones in children. A prior review of patients presenting to our quaternary children's hospital with urolithiasis found only 54 % were prescribed MET and these patients had increased rates of spontaneous stone passage. Thus, an ED urolithiasis management protocol was created to standardize evaluation and care of children with suspected urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE

To compare management of children with urolithiasis presenting to the ED before and after urolithiasis management protocol implementation.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of patients with urolithiasis who presented to our children's ED from 2011 to 2022. The primary outcome was rate of MET prescribing before and after pathway implementation in July 2017, thus the pre-implementation group comprises patients who presented to the ED from July 2011 to July 2017, and the post-protocol group includes those who presented from August 2017 to April 2022. Secondary outcomes included CT utilization in the ED, surgical intervention rate, proportion with spontaneous stone passage, and frequency of urology consultation. Two-sample t-test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the outcomes of interest before and after protocol implementation.

RESULTS

Of 337 patients who presented to the ED after protocol implementation, 120 met inclusion criteria. When comparing outcomes before and after implementation of the protocol, there was significantly decreased use of CT scans (79 % vs 50 %, p < 0.0001) and increased prescribing of MET (54 % vs 82 %, p < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in opioids prescribed (44 % vs 26.7 %, p = 0.0040), and an increased rate of spontaneous stone passage (34 % vs 46 %, p = 0.0483). Lastly, there was a significant reduction in the rate of surgery for stone management after the implementation of protocol (35 % vs 17 %, p = 0.0020) DISCUSSION: As the ED is the primary site of presentation for many children with urolithiasis, standardization of evaluation and management provides an opportunity to improve outcomes in this population. We found that implementation of an ED urolithiasis management protocol was associated with decreased use of CT scans, decreased opioid prescribing, increased spontaneous stone passage, and decreased rate of surgical management for children with ureteral stones.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the positive impact of standardizing care for children presenting to the ED with urolithiasis.

Pediatric Stone Disease: Current Trends and Future Directions

Pediatric nephrolithiasis is less common in children than in adults but the incidence has been rising rapidly, and it is now a public health and economic burden in the United States. There are challenges unique to children that should be taken into consideration when evaluating and managing pediatric stone disease. In this review, we present the current research on risk factors, emerging new technologies for treatment of stones and recent investigations on prevention of stones in this population.

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Pediatric Ureteral Stones: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones in pediatric patients, Cochrane, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the reference list of retrieved studies were searched up to September 2022 to identify RCTs on the efficacy of MET. The protocol was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42022339093). Articles were reviewed, data were extracted by two reviewers, and the differences were resolved by the third reviewer. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2. The outcomes, including the stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), episode of pain, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects, were evaluated. Six RCTs enrolling 415 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The duration of MET ranged from 19 to 28 days. The investigated medications included tamsulosin, silodosin, and doxazosin. The stone-free rate after 4 weeks in the MET group was 1.42 times that of the control group (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.26-1.61, p < 0.001). The stone expulsion time also decreased by an average of 5.18 days (95% CI: -8.46/-1.89, p = 0.002). Adverse effects were more commonly observed in the MET group (RR: 2.18; 95% CI: 1.28-3.69, p = 0.004). The subgroup analysis evaluating the influence of the type of medication, the stone size, and the age of patients failed to reveal any impact of the aforementioned factors on the stone expulsion rate or stone expulsion time. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy among pediatric patients are efficient and safe. They increase the stone expulsion rate and decrease the stone expulsion time; however, this included a higher rate of adverse effects, which include headache, dizziness, or nasal congestion.

Meta-analysis of the efficacy and adverse drug reactions of adrenergic alpha-antagonists in treating children with ureteral calculi

This meta-analysis investigated the efficacy and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of three different adrenergic alpha-antagonists during the treatment of pediatric ureteral stones. Studies were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry until January 2022. We identified 7 articles, including six RCTs and one cohort study. 610 children received either adrenergic alpha-antagonists or placebo. The results confirmed that the three different adrenergic alpha-antagonists could significantly increase the ureteral calculi expulsive rate and shorten the ureteral calculi expulsive time, regardless of the size of the stone "<5 mm" or "5-10 mm". Subgroup analysis suggested that all three adrenergic alpha-antagonists increased the ureteral calculi expulsive rate. Tamsulosin and silodosin also have the effect of shortening ureteral calculi expulsive time, while doxazosin has an insignificant effect on ureteral calculi expulsive time. Besides, tamsulosin and silodosin obviously reduced the number of pain episodes caused by ureteral calculi in children. We analyzed the treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) caused by the treatment of three different adrenergic alpha-antagonists to explore their ADRs. The probability of ADRs was increased after treatment with adrenergic alpha-antagonists. Further subgroup analysis revealed the application of tamsulosin was positively correlated with ADRs in children with ureteral calculi, while the application of doxazosin and silodosin had no statistically significant effect on the probability of TEAEs. In a conclusion, this article systematically analyzed the efficacy and ADRs of three different adrenergic alpha-antagonists, and provided reference and guidance for the application of adrenergic alpha-antagonists to treat children ureteral calculi.

Meta-Analysis of the Safety and Efficacy of α-Adrenergic Blockers for Pediatric Urolithiasis in the Distal Ureter

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric urolithiasis is a common condition, and medical expulsive therapy has grown to be accepted by many parents. We carried out a meta-analysis to identify the efficacy and safety of α-adrenergic blockers for the treatment of pediatric urolithiasis.

METHODS

We identified related articles from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. All published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the use of α-adrenergic blockers and placebo treatment for pediatric distal urolithiasis were involved. The outcomes included stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, pain episodes, need for analgesia, adverse events, and related subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

A total of nine RCTs were involved in our study, including 586 patients. We found that α-adrenergic blockers could significantly increase the rate of stone expulsion [odds ratio (OR), 3.49; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.38-5.12; p < 0.00001], reduce the stone expulsion time [mean difference (MD), -5.15; 95% CI, -8.51 to -1.80; p = 0.003], and decrease pain episodes (MD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.33 to -0.72; p < 0.00001) and analgesia demand (MD, -0.92; 95% CI, -1.32 to -0.53; p < 0.00001) but had a higher incidence of side effects (MD, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.55 to 5.15; p = 0.0007). During subgroup analyses, different medications (tamsulosin, doxazosin, and silodosin) also exhibited better efficiencies than placebo, except for doxazosin, which showed no difference in expulsion time (MD, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.98 to 0.51; p = 0.17). The three kinds of α-adrenergic blockers also appeared to be better tolerated, except for tamsulosin with its greater number of adverse events (MD, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.34 to 6.03; p = 0.006). Silodosin led to a better expulsion rate than tamsulosin (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.92; p = 0.03). In addition, α-adrenergic blockers increased the stone expulsion rate regardless of stone size and decreased the expulsion time of stones measuring <5 mm (MD, -1.71; 95% CI, -2.91 to -0.52; p = 0.005), which was not the case for stones measuring >5 mm in expulsion time (MD, -3.61; 95% CI, -10.17 to 2.96; p = 0.28).

CONCLUSION

Our review suggests that α-adrenergic blockers are well-tolerated and efficient for treating pediatric distal urolithiasis. We also conclude that silodosin is the best choice of drug, offering a better expulsion rate, but it remains to be evaluated further by future studies.

Comparison of efficacy of various drugs used for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Medical expulsive therapy has been found to be effective for distal ureteric stones; however, which drug is most efficacious in terms of stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET) is not known. With this review we aimed to compare the efficacy of various drug treatments for distal ureter stones used as medical expulsive therapy in terms of SER and SET.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was conducted to include all the randomised study comparing various drug interventions for lower ureter stones. Standard preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were pursued.

RESULTS

In this review, 50 randomised studies with 12,382 patients were included. For stone expulsion rate (SER), compared with placebo all the treatment groups were more effective except nifedipine and sildenafil. According to the SUCRA values obtained, naftopidil plus steroid was the highest rank and nifedipine lowest. For stone expulsion time (SET), compared with placebo only tadalafil plus silodosin, nifedipine plus steroid, alfuzosin, silodosin, tadalafil and tamsulosin were more effective. SUCRA values were highest for tadalafil plus silodosin and least for naftopidil plus steroid. From subgroup analysis with individual drugs for SER, SUCRA values were highest for naftopidil followed by silodosin and SET was highest for silodosin and least for naftopidil.

CONCLUSION

For lower ureter stone, tadalafil plus silodosin is the best combination and silodosin best individual drug considering the SET and SER. Nifedipine as monotherapy is no more effective than control group.

Comparison of efficacy of three commonly used alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction:

The efficacy of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy (MET) is well established. However, it is not known which of the three most commonly used alpha-blockers (tamsulosin, alfuzosin and silodosin) is the most efficacious. With this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of the three commonly used alpha-blockers as MET for distal ureter stones.

Materials and Methods:

For this review, we searched multiple databases such as PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, OviD SP, CINAHL, and web of science to identify all the relevant randomized studies comparing the efficacy of tamsulosin, alfuzosin, and silodosin. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews for network meta-analysis (PRISMA-NMA) were followed while conducting this review and the study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175706).

Results:

In this review, 31 studies with 7077 patients were included. Compared to placebo all the treatment groups were more effective for both stone expulsion rate (SER) and stone expulsion time (SET). For both SER and SET, silodosin had the highest SUCRA (94.8 and 90.4) values followed by alfuzosin (58.8 and 64.9) and tamsulosin (46.2 and 44.5). The incidence of postural hypotension was similar with all the drugs, whereas, the incidence of retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher for silodosin. Overall confidence for each comparison group in this review ranged from “very low” to “moderate” according to the CINeMA approach.

Conclusion:

Among the three commonly used alpha-blockers silodosin is the most efficacious drug as MET for lower ureter stones followed by alfuzosin and tamsulosin.

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Children with Lower-Third Ureteric Stones: Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of silodosin versus tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for stones of lower-third ureter in children.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective single-blind placebo-controlled randomized study included 167 pediatric patients who presented with distal ureteric stone (DUS) less than 1 cm. Patients were randomized into 3 groups; group I received silodosin 4 mg once daily, and group II received tamsulosin 0.4 mg while those in group III had placebo. The side effects of the used drugs, both rate and time of stone expulsion, and number of pain episodes were compared among the study groups for a maximum of 4 weeks.

RESULTS

Follow-up data of our patients after treatment revealed that the stone expulsion rate was significantly higher and the time to stone expulsion was significantly shorter in group I (89.3%, 12.4 ± 2.3 days) and group II (74.5%, 16.2 ± 4.2 days) compared to group III (51.8%, 21.2 ± 5.6). However, a statistically significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin groups in favor of the former one was reported regarding the 2 studied items. Meanwhile, pain episodes requiring analgesia were statistically fewer in group I and II in contrast to placebo group. Adverse events were comparable among all groups.

CONCLUSION

Silodosin provides significantly better stone expulsion rate and shorter expulsion time than tamsulosin for treatment of DUS. Both medications showed good safety profiles in children. However, further studies are required on a larger scale to confirm our results. Assessment of drug safety on younger age-group is still needed.

Reprint - Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children: A Cochrane Review

INTRODUCTION

We performed systematic review to assess the effects of different medical and surgical management of urinary stones in children.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials), trials registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov), and abstract proceedings of major urological and pediatric urology meetings, with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until December 2017. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs. Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in accordance with the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence according to GRADE.

RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomized participants in our review, informing seven comparisons with shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy (regardless of the type of lithotripsy), open stone surgery, and medical expulsive therapy. There was very low quality of evidence in the most comparisons with regards to the effectiveness and adverse events for the treatment of pediatric upper renal tract stone disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children. There is a critical need for better-quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.

Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children

BACKGROUND

Urolithiasis is a condition where crystalline mineral deposits (stones) form within the urinary tract. Urinary stones can be located in any part of the urinary tract. Affected children may present with abdominal pain, blood in the urine or signs of infection. Radiological evaluation is used to confirm the diagnosis, to assess the size of the stone, its location, and the degree of possible urinary obstruction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different medical and surgical interventions in the treatment of urinary tract stones of the kidney or ureter in children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We searched reference lists of retrieved articles and conducted an electronic search for conference abstracts for the years 2012 to 2017. The date of the last search of all electronic databases was 31 December 2017 and we applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs looking at interventions for upper urinary tract stones in children. These included shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy, open surgery and medical expulsion therapy for upper urinary tract stones in children aged 0 to 18 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures according to Cochrane guidance. Two review authors independently searched and assessed studies for eligibility and conducted data extraction. 'Risk of bias' assessments were completed by three review authors independently. We used Review Manager 5 for data synthesis and analysis. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 studies with a total of 978 randomised participants in our review, informing eight comparisons. The studies contributing to most comparisons were at high or unclear risk of bias for most domains.Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for intrarenal stones: based on one study (87 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on stone-free rate (SFR), serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (60 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures for residual fragments.Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones: based on three studies (153 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (212 participants), SWL likely has a lower SFR (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.97; moderate quality evidence); this corresponds to 113 fewer stone-free patients per 1000 (189 fewer to 28 fewer). SWL may reduce severe adverse events (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 66 fewer serious adverse events or complications per 1000 (74 fewer to 2 fewer). Rates of secondary procedures may be higher (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 6.20; low-quality evidence); this corresponds to 85 more secondary procedures per 1000 (1 more to 294 more).Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (23 participants) and consistently very low quality evidence, we are uncertain about the effects of SWL on SFR, serious adverse events or complications of treatment and secondary procedures.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones: based on one study (70 participants), SFR are likely similar (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.14; moderate-quality evidence); this corresponds to 28 more per 1,000 (66 fewer to 132 more). We did not find any data relating to serious adverse events. Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about secondary procedures.Alpha-blockers versus placebo with or without analgesics for distal ureteric stones: based on six studies (335 participants), alpha-blockers may increase SFR (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.54; low quality evidence); this corresponds to 199 more stone-free patients per 1000 (94 more to 317 more). Based on very low quality evidence we are uncertain about serious adverse events or complications and secondary procedures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mostly very low-quality evidence for most comparisons and outcomes, we are uncertain about the effect of nearly all medical and surgical interventions to treat stone disease in children.Common reasons why we downgraded our assessments of the quality of evidence were: study limitations (risk of bias), indirectness, and imprecision. These issues make it difficult to draw clinical inferences. It is important that affected individuals, clinicians, and policy-makers are aware of these limitations of the evidence. There is a critical need for better quality trials assessing patient-important outcomes in children with stone disease to inform future guidelines on the management of this condition.