Purpose: We performed a systematic review of the literature regarding the diagnosis and treatment of caliceal diverticulum (CD).

Methods: The search strategy was conducted according to the Cochrane review guidelines for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist.

Results: In total 1189 titles and abstracts were reviewed, of which 101 were selected for article evaluation. Of these 101 articles, 40 were selected for inclusion after full article evaluations. In the extracted article, intravenous urography (IVU), rather than CT urography, was the main imaging tool for diagnosis, although many articles had failed to provide any imaging modality information. The extracted articles included 88, 153, and 487 patients who underwent shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), flexible ureteroscopy/retrograde intrarenal surgery (fURS/RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), respectively. Stone-free rates were 21.3% (SWL), 61.4% (fURS/RIRS), and 83.0% (PCNL). The complication rates were 8.0% (SWL), 3.3% (fURS/RIRS), and 11.9% (PCNL). There was incomplete and inconsistent reporting of even basic clinical parameters, such as the size and location of the CD, number of stones, outcomes, and complications. There was a striking lack of follow-up data, despite a known high recurrence rate. The literature on laparoscopic management was too sparse to analyze.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis revealed that there are not enough high-quality studies to evaluate the ideal strategy for the diagnosis and treatment of CDs. This systematic review emphasizes (a) the importance of contrast imaging for CD diagnosis, (b) higher success rates but also higher complication rates in PCNL compared with SWL and FURS, and (c) the need for standardized reporting of outcomes to include complications, number of interventions, symptom resolution, stone clearance, and CD ablation.

Title

Journal of edourology

Publisher

Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers

Publisher Country

United States of America

Indexing

Scopus

Impact Factor

2.26

Publication Type

Both (Printed and Online)

Volume

--

Year

--

Pages

--