Micropercutaneous versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for the Management of Moderately Sized Kidney Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

被引:6
|
作者
Zhang Baochao [1 ]
Hu Yonghui [2 ,3 ]
Gao Jie [4 ]
Zhuo Dong [1 ]
机构
[1] Wannan Med Coll, Dept Urol, Affiliated Hosp 1, Wuhu, Peoples R China
[2] Tianjin Med Univ, Dept Endocrinol, Metab Dis Hosp, Tianjin, Peoples R China
[3] Tianjin Med Univ, Tianjin Inst Endocrinol, Tianjin, Peoples R China
[4] Tianjin Med Univ, Tianjin Inst Urol, Dept Urol, Hosp 2, Tianjin, Peoples R China
关键词
Micropercutaneous surgery; Micro-PCNL; Retrograde intrarenal surgery; Flexible ureteroscopy; Kidney stones; CLINICAL-RESEARCH OFFICE; PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY; RENAL STONES; LASER LITHOTRIPSY; FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY; COST-EFFECTIVENESS; CM; TRACT; COMPLICATIONS; CALCULI;
D O I
10.1159/000503796
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: To compare the effect of micropercutaneous surgery (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of moderately size kidney stones. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in March 2019 using PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Medline to identify relevant studies. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare microperc with RIRS in patients with lower-pole stones (LPS) and non-LPS (NLPS), respectively. Results: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 non-RCTs were analyzed. Microperc provided a significantly lower rate of double-J stent insertion (p < 0.00001) but a larger decrease in hemoglobin levels (p = 0.0002). In contrast, RIRS led to a shorter hospital stay (p = 0.01) and a lower stone-free rate (SFR) (p = 0.03). IN the subgroup analysis, RIRS provided a significantly lower drop in hemoglobin drop than microperc in patients with LPSs (p = 0.0003). Microperc showed a longer operative time (p = 0.03), longer hospital stay (p = 0.04), and greater drop in hemoglobin (p = 0.04) in patients with NLPS. Conclusions: Microperc is associated with fewer double-J stent insertions and higher SFR at the expense of a greater drop in hemoglobin and longer hospital stay. Given the differences between the procedures, urologists should synthesize the individual characteristics of patients and unique advantages of these therapies so as to choose the optimal treatment for individual patients.
引用
收藏
页码:94 / 105
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Super pulsed thulium fiber laser outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Nazal A. Almasoud
    Omar Safar
    Adel Elatreisy
    Saad Thamer Alshahrani
    Saud Bin Libdah
    Sulaiman M. Alkhaldi
    Nezar F. Alsoliman
    Abdulrahman M. Alderaan
    Ibrahim Abdel-Al
    Tamer A. Abouelgreed
    Mohammed Alabeedi
    Abdulrahman Al-Aown
    BMC Urology, 23
  • [32] Super pulsed thulium fiber laser outcomes in retrograde intrarenal surgery for ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Almasoud, Nazal A.
    Safar, Omar
    Elatreisy, Adel
    Alshahrani, Saad Thamer
    Libdah, Saud Bin
    Alkhaldi, Sulaiman M.
    Alsoliman, Nezar F.
    Alderaan, Abdulrahman M.
    Abdel-Al, Ibrahim
    Abouelgreed, Tamer A.
    Alabeedi, Mohammed
    Al-Aown, Abdulrahman
    BMC UROLOGY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [33] Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery on mid-sized lower calyx stones– a systematic review of last decade
    Tunahan Ates
    Nebil Akdogan
    Ismail Onder Yılmaz
    Mehmet Gurkan Arıkan
    Mutlu Deger
    BMC Urology, 25 (1)
  • [34] Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (vol 67, pg 125, 2015)
    De, Shuba
    Autorino, Riccardo
    Kim, Fernando J.
    Zargar, Homayoun
    Laydner, Humberto
    Balsamo, Raffaele
    Torricelli, Fabio C.
    Di Palma, Carmine
    Molina, Wilson R.
    Monga, Manoj
    De Sio, Marco
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2016, 69 (04) : E85 - E85
  • [35] Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Treatment of Renal Stones &gt; 2 cm: A Meta-Analysis
    Zheng, Changjian
    Xiong, Bo
    Wang, Hongzhi
    Luo, Jun
    Zhang, Chenggou
    Wei, Wei
    Wang, Yarong
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2014, 93 (04) : 417 - 424
  • [36] Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones management: a meta-analysis
    Pradono, E. I.
    Prapiska, F.
    Kadar, D. D.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 123 : 17 - 17
  • [37] Comparison and outcomes of dusting versus stone fragmentation and extraction in retrograde intrarenal surgery: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gauhar, Vineet
    Teoh, Jeremy Yuen-Chun
    Mulawkar, Prashant Motiram
    Tak, Gopal R.
    Wroclawski, Marcelo Langer
    Robles-Torres, Jose Ivan
    Chan, Vinson Wai-Shun
    Rojo, Esther Garcia
    Silva, Rodrigo Donalisio da
    Tanidir, Yiloren
    Tiong, Ho Yee
    Sener, Tarik Emre
    Heldwein, Flavio Lobo
    Somani, Bhaskar Kumar
    Castellani, Daniele
    CENTRAL EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2022, 75 (03) : 317 - 327
  • [38] Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rates of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones &gt;2cm An update
    Kang, Sung Ku
    Cho, Kang Su
    Kang, Dong Hyuk
    Do Jung, Hae
    Kwon, Jong Kyou
    Lee, Joo Yong
    MEDICINE, 2017, 96 (49)
  • [39] Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 10–20 mm lower pole renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    José D. Cabrera
    Braulio O. Manzo
    José E. Torres
    Fabio C. Vicentini
    Héctor M. Sánchez
    Ernesto A. Rojas
    Edgard Lozada
    World Journal of Urology, 2020, 38 : 2621 - 2628
  • [40] Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Kim, Chan Hee
    Chung, Doo Yong
    Rha, Koon Ho
    Lee, Joo Yong
    Lee, Seon Heui
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2021, 57 (01): : 1 - 23