Comparison of surgical versus conservative treatment in ureteropelvic junction obstruction: A systematic review of non-randomized trials

Abstract

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) is a major cause of obstructive uropathy in pediatric patients. However, the optimal management remains controversial. We aimed to summarize the evidence comparing surgical versus conservative treatment. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed (2016 to 31 October 2024) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 31 October 2024. The primary outcome was split renal function (SRF). Results were summarized in a structured table. Study quality was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool and the level of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. Our search resulted in 2.251 reports. We included two non-randomized interventional studies with 136 patients. One study reported no statistically significant difference in SRF between the study groups after 1 year of follow up, while the second study reported higher SRF in surgical group 6 months postoperatively. The studies were judged to have a serious risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was rated as very low. The paucity of eligible data precluded the performance of a meta-analysis. Our findings could not support clinical recommendations. This study highlights the lack of high-quality evidence that will come from large, prospective, well-designed trials comparing surgical intervention to updated conservative treatment options.