Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review

被引:5
|
作者
Zhu Zewu [1 ]
Cui, Yu [1 ]
Feng, Zeng [1 ]
Yang, Li [1 ]
Chen, Hequn [1 ]
机构
[1] Cent South Univ, Xiangya Hosp, Dept Urol, Changsha 410008, Hunan, Peoples R China
来源
INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL | 2019年 / 45卷 / 01期
关键词
Ureteroscopy; Nephrolithotomy; Percutaneous; Kidney Calculi; CLINICAL-RESEARCH OFFICE; INTRARENAL SURGERY; 2; CM; MATCHED ANALYSIS; KIDNEY-STONES; COMPLICATIONS; LITHOTRIPSY; DIAMETER; PCNL;
D O I
10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2018.0510
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
Purpose: To systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm). Materials and Methods: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to May 2018. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of case-control studies. Results: Six retrospective case-controlled trials were included for meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that PCNL was associated with a higher initial stone-free rate (SFR). After more complementary treatments, FURS provided a final SFR (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.93-3.05; P = 0.08) comparable to that achieved by PCNL. PCNL was associated with a higher rate of overall intraoperative complications (OR: 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.17; P = 0.04) and longer hospital stay (MD: 2.21 days; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.30; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by Clavien-graded complication showed PCNL had significantly higher rates of minor complications (OR: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.41; P = 0.03). No significant difference was noted in major complications (OR: 1.14; 95% CI, 0.53-2.45; P = 0.73) or operative times (MD: -9.71 min; 95% CI, -22.02 to 2.60; P = 0.12). Conclusions: Multisession FURS is an effective and safe alternative to PCNL for the management of intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm). It is advisable to balance the benefits and risks according to the individual characteristics of patients and to decide with patients by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.
引用
收藏
页码:10 / 22
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Comparison between Retrograde Flexible Ureteroscopy and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for the Treatment of Renal Stones of 2-4 cm
    Cosmin, Cozma
    Georgescu, Dragos Adrian
    Geavlete, Petrisor
    Popescu, Razvan-Ionut
    Geavlete, Bogdan
    MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, 2023, 59 (01):
  • [2] Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones &gt;2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Barone, Biagio
    Crocetto, Felice
    Vitale, Raffaele
    Di Domenico, Dante
    Caputo, Vincenzo
    Romano, Francesco
    De Luca, Luigi
    Bada, Maida
    Imbimbo, Ciro
    Prezioso, Domenico
    MINERVA UROLOGICA E NEFROLOGICA, 2020, 72 (04) : 441 - 450
  • [3] Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones &gt;2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Qin, Pengfei
    Zhang, Dong
    Huang, Ting
    Fang, Li
    Cheng, Yue
    INTERNATIONAL BRAZ J UROL, 2022, 48 (04): : 637 - 648
  • [4] Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of renal stones over 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
    Mykoniatis, Ioannis
    Pietropaolo, Amelia
    Pyrgidis, Nikolaos
    Tishukov, Maksim
    Anastasiadis, Anastasios
    Juliebo-Jones, Patrick
    Keller, Etienne X.
    Talso, Michele
    Tailly, Thomas
    Kalidonis, Panagiotis
    MINERVA UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY, 2022, 74 (04): : 409 - 417
  • [5] 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)
  • [6] Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones A systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Tsai, Sheng-Han
    Chung, Hsiao-Jen
    Tseng, Ping-Tao
    Wu, Yi-Cheng
    Tu, Yu-Kang
    Hsu, Chih-Wei
    Lei, Wei-Te
    MEDICINE, 2020, 99 (10)
  • [7] Comparison between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of 2 and 3 cm renal lithiasis
    Fernandez Alcalde, A. A.
    Ruiz Hernandez, M.
    Gomez dos Santos, V.
    Sanchez Guerrero, C.
    Diaz Perez, D. E.
    Arias Funez, F.
    Laso Garcia, I.
    Duque Ruiz, G.
    Burgos Revilla, F. J.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2019, 43 (03): : 111 - 117
  • [8] Comparison of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureteroscopy for the treatment of intermediate proximal ureteral and renal stones in the elderly
    Hu, Henglong
    Lu, Yuchao
    He, Deng
    Cui, Lei
    Zhang, Jiaqiao
    Zhao, Zhenyu
    Qin, Baolong
    Wang, Yufeng
    Lin, Feng
    Wang, Shaogang
    UROLITHIASIS, 2016, 44 (05) : 427 - 434
  • [9] Flexible Ureteroscopy and Laser Lithotripsy for Stones &gt; 2 cm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Aboumarzouk, Omar M.
    Monga, Manoj
    Kata, Slawomir G.
    Traxer, Olivier
    Somani, Bhaskar K.
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (10) : 1257 - 1263
  • [10] Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Versus Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones &gt;1 cm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials
    Dorantes-Carrillo, Luis Alberto
    Basulto-Martinez, Mario
    Suarez-Ibarrola, Rodrigo
    Heinze, Alexander
    Proietti, Silvia
    Flores-Tapia, Juan Pablo
    Esqueda-Mendoza, Antonio
    Giusti, Guido
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY FOCUS, 2022, 8 (01): : 259 - 270