Percutaneous Ballon Dilatation And Traditional Open Surgery On Benign Ureteral Stricture By Metaanalysis

Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of percutaneous ballon dilatation and traditional open surgery on benign ureteral stricture by Meta analysis.Methods: We performed a literature search based on databases of PubMed、Cochrane Library、EMBASE、CNKI、WANFANG database、WEIPU database and Chinese biomedical literature database.All randomized controlled trials(RCT)exploring the Comparison of percutaneous ballon dilatation and raditional open surgery on benign ureteral stricture are criteria ollected and screened out according to the inclusion and exclusion.This study evaluates of the perioperative outcomes including Operation time,Intraoperative blood loss,length of hospital stay and total effective rate,published before May 28,2018.The evaluated by the methodo—logical quality,statistical analyzed with RevMen 5.3 software.Results: Seven studies including 427 patients met the inclusion criteria from which 207 and 220 patients were divided into the percutaneous ballon dilatation and traditional open surgery group.Meta-analysis showed ashorter operation time(MD=-34.11,95%CI=-38.32~-29.89),less intraoperative blood loss(MD=-146.24 95%CI =[-153.17~-139.32])and shorter time of length of hospital stay(MD=-5.93 95%CI =[-6.37~-5.48])。Here was no significant difference between two groups in total effective rate(OR=1.86,95%CI= 0.82~4.22 P=0.14).Conclusion: Comparing of the traditional open surgery,percutaneous ballon dilatation would be safer on the therapy of benign ureteral stricture.