Meta-analysis of Optimal Management of Lower Pole Stone of 10 - 20 mm: Flexible Ureteroscopy (FURS) versus Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Percutaneus Nephrolithotomy (PCNL)

被引:6
|
作者
Yuri, Prahara [1 ]
Hariwibowo, Rinto [2 ]
Soeroharjo, Indrawarman [1 ]
Danarto, Raden [1 ]
Hendri, Ahmad Z. [1 ]
Brodjonegoro, Sakti R. [1 ]
Rasyid, Nur [2 ]
Birowo, Ponco [2 ]
Widyahening, Indah S. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Gadjah Mada, Sardjito Hosp, Fac Med, Dept Surg,Div Urol, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
[2] Univ Indonesia, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hosp, Fac Med, Dept Surg, Jakarta, Indonesia
[3] Univ Indonesia, Fac Med, Dept Community Med, Jakarta, Indonesia
关键词
lower pole stone; flexible ureteroscopy; extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; percutaneus nephrolithotomy;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: the optimal management of lower calyceal stones is still controversial, because no single method is suitable for the removal of all lower calyceal stones. Minimally invasive procedures such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) are the therapeutic methods for lower calyceal stones. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal management of 10-20 mm lower pole stones. Methods: a meta-analysis of cohort studies published before July 2016 was performed from Medline and Cochrane databases. Management of 10-20 mm lower pole stone treated by fURS, ESWL and PCNL with follow-up of residual stones in 1-3 months after procedure were include and urinary stone in other location and size were excluded. A fixed-effects model with Mantzel-Haenzel method was used to calculate the pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) and 95% Confidence Interval (CIs). We assessed the heterogeneity by calculating the I-2 statistic. All analyses were performed with Review manager 5.3. Results: we analized 8 cohort studies. The stone free rate from 958 patients (271 PCNL, 174 fURS and 513 ESWL), 3 months after operation, was 90.8% (246/271) after PCNL; 75.3% (131/174) after fURS; and 64.7% (332/513) after ESWL. Base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone following management, PCNL is better than fURS (overall RR was 1.32 (95% CI 1.13 - 1.55); p<0.001 and I-2=57%) and ESWL (overall risk ratio 1.42 (95% CI 1.30 - 1.55); p=<0.001 and I-2 = 85%). But, if we compare between fURS and ESWL, fURS is better than ESWL base on stone free rate in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management with overall RR 1.16 (95% CI 1.04 - 1.30; p=0.01 and I-2=40%). Conclusion: percutaneus nephrolithotomy provided a higher stone free rate than fURS and ESWL. This meta- analysis may help urologist in making decision of intervention in 10-20 mm lower pole stone management.
引用
收藏
页码:18 / 25
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy
    Preminger, GM
    [J]. UROLOGICAL RESEARCH, 2006, 34 (02): : 108 - 111
  • [2] Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy
    Glenn M. Preminger
    [J]. Urological Research, 2006, 34 : 108 - 111
  • [3] Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10-20 mm
    El-Nahas, Ahmed R.
    Ibrahim, Hamdy M.
    Youssef, Ramy F.
    Sheir, Khaled Z.
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (06) : 898 - 902
  • [4] Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) for Kidney Stones
    Schmidt, S.
    Miernik, A.
    [J]. UROLOGE, 2015, 54 (09): : 1283 - 1286
  • [5] Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones
    Srisubat, Attasit
    Potisat, Somkiat
    Lojanapiwat, Bannakij
    Setthawong, Vasun
    Laopaiboon, Malinee
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2009, (04):
  • [6] Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones
    Srisubat, Attasit
    Potisat, Somkiat
    Lojanapiwat, Bannakij
    Setthawong, Vasun
    Laopaiboon, Malinee
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2014, (11):
  • [7] Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones
    Setthawong, Vasun
    Srisubat, Attasit
    Potisat, Somkiat
    Lojanapiwat, Bannakij
    Pattanittum, Porjai
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2023, (08):
  • [8] OPTIMAL THERAPY FOR THE DISTAL URETERAL STONE - EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK-WAVE LITHOTRIPSY VERSUS URETEROSCOPY
    ANDERSON, KR
    KEETCH, DW
    ALBALA, DM
    CHANDHOKE, PS
    MCCLENNAN, BL
    CLAYMAN, RV
    [J]. JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 1994, 152 (01): : 62 - 65
  • [9] FLEXIBLE URETERORENOSCOPY VERSUS EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCKWAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR TREATMENT OF LOWER POLE STONES OF 10-20 MM
    Resorlu, Berkan
    Unsal, Ali
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2012, 110 (02) : E5 - E5
  • [10] COMPARING EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY (SWL) WITH PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (PCNL) FOR LOWER POLE STONES LARGER THAN 10 MM: HONG KONG EXPERIENCE
    Ma, W. K.
    Yu, C.
    Lam, K. M.
    Chu, S. K.
    Man, C. W.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY SUPPLEMENTS, 2009, 8 (04) : 325 - 325