Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: Purpose:Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) versus standard PCNL (sPCNL) to provide higher-level evidence. Materials and Methods:Eligible randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases. The data analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration's software RevMan 5.3. Results:A total of 1,219 patients from 9 articles published between 2004 and 2019 were included. Compared with those who received sPCNL, patients who received mPCNL experienced a higher stone-free rate (SFR) (odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.99; p=0.03), lower transfusion rates (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.63; p=0.0007), and lower drops in hemoglobin (mean difference [MD], -0.72; 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.40; p<0.00001), but the operative time seemed to be significantly longer (MD, 10.98; 95% CI, 3.64-18.32; p=0.003). Of note, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the SFR (p=0.09) for renal calculi ?2 cm. In addition, the meta-analysis results showed no significant differences between the groups regarding urine leakage (p=0.60), postoperative fever (p=0.71), impaired ventilation (p=0.97), or total complications (p=0.29) with no heterogeneity between trials. These results remain unaffected with regard to renal calculi ?2 cm. Conclusions:Our findings suggested that mPCNL had a higher SFR than sPCNL and there was no significant difference between the two groups for renal stones ?2 cm. Besides, mPCNL tended to be associated with significantly less bleeding and a lower transfusion rate, but the duration of the procedure seemed to be significantly longer.

SUBMITTER: Feng D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7052418 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Feng Dechao D Hu Xiao X Tang Yin Y Han Ping P Wei Xin X

Investigative and clinical urology 20200221 2

<h4>Purpose</h4>Our aim was to assess the efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) versus standard PCNL (sPCNL) to provide higher-level evidence.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Eligible randomized controlled trials were identified from electronic databases. The data analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration's software RevMan 5.3.<h4>Results</h4>A total of 1,219 patients from 9 articles published between 2004 and 2019 were included. Compared with those who ...[more]

PMID: 32158962

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of regional anesthesia (RA) and general anesthesia (GA) for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL).Patients and methodsPubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and the Web of Knowledge databases were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. After literature screening and data extraction, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs) involving 2270 patients were included. Patients receiving RA were associated with shorter operative time (-6.22 min; 95%CI, -9.70 to -2.75; p = 0.0005), lower visual analgesic score on the first and third postoperative day (WMD, -2.62; 95%CI, -3.04 to -2.19; p < 0.00001 WMD, -0.38; 95%CI, -0.58 to -0.18; p = 0.0002), less analgesic requirements (WMD, -59.40 mg; 95%CI, -78.39 to -40.40; p<0.00001), shorter hospitalization (WMD, -0.36d; 95%CI, -0.66 to -0.05; p = 0.02), less blood transfusion (RR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.41 to 0.93; p = 0.02), fewer modified Clavion-Dindo Grade II (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.37 to 0.83; p = 0.005), Grade III or above postoperative complications (RR, 0.51; 95%CI, 0.33 to 0.77; p = 0.001), and potential benefits of less fever (RR, 0.79; 95%CI, 0.61 to 1.02; p = 0.07), nausea or vomiting (RR, 0.54; 95%CI, 0.20 to 1.46; p = 0.23), whereas more intraoperative hypotension (RR, 3.13; 95%CI, 1.76 to 5.59; p = 0.0001) when compared with patients receiving GA. When nRCTs were excluded, most of the results were stable but the significant differences were no longer detectable in blood transfusion, Grade II and more severe complications. No significant difference in the total postoperative complications and stone-free rate were found.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests that both RA and GA can provide safe and effective anesthesia for PNL in carefully evaluated and selected patients. Each anesthesia technique has its own advantages but some aspects still remain unclear and need to be explored in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundShock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and minimally invasive PCNL are currently therapeutic options for lower-pole renal stones (LPS). However, the optimal treatment for LPS remains unclear. A comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of each intervention is needed to inform clinical decision-making. This study aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of different interventions for LPS.MethodsPubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, ClinicalKey, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to December 6th 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including the patients treated for LPS were included. The frequentist models of network meta-analysis were used to compare the effect sizes. The primary outcome was stone free rate, and the secondary outcomes were overall complication rate, major complication rate, retreatment rate, and auxiliary procedure rate.ResultsThis study included 13 RCTs comprising 1832 participants undergoing 6 different interventions, including RIRS, PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Micro-PCNL, SWL, and conservative observation. PCNL had the best stone free rate (odds ratio [OR] = 3.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.30-9.12), followed by Mini-PCNL (OR = 2.90, 95% CI = 1.13-7.46). Meta-regression did not find any association of the treatment effect with age, sex, and stone size. Although PCNL tended to exhibit a higher complication rate, the difference of complication rate among various interventions did not achieve a statistical significance. SWL was the less effective and associated with higher retreatment rate compared with PCNL, Mini-PNCL, and RIRS.ConclusionsPCNL was associated with the best stone free rate for LPS regardless of age, sex, and stone size. Each treatment achieved a similar complication rate compared with the others. Future large-scale RCTs are warranted to identify the most beneficial management for renal stones at a more complicated location.

Project description:BackgroundPercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is known as the most effective treatment for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, without proper therapy and patient management, stent thrombosis after PCI may lead to another myocardial infarction. In addition to aspirin and clopidogrel, tirofiban is often used as an antiplatelet therapy in patients with ACS. To date, there has been no comprehensive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of intracoronary (IC) tirofiban administration for ACS patients undergoing PCI compared with intravenous (IV) administration. Therefore, this meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the clinical efficiency and safety of IC versus intravenous (IV) tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Medline for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IC versus IV administration of tirofiban in ACS patients undergoing PCI. We evaluated the effects of tirofiban on thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) grade 3 flow after PCI, TIMI myocardial perfusion grade 3 (TMP grade 3), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), target vessel revascularization (TVR), death, reinfarction and adverse drug effects (specifically bleeding events).ResultsSeven trials involving 1,027 patients were included in this meta-analysis. IC administration of tirofiban significantly increased TIMI grade 3 flow (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 4.37; P = 0.04) and TMP grade 3 (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.09 to 6.49; P = 0.03, I2 = 64%) while reducing MACE (OR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.75; P = 0.002) compared with IV administration of tirofiban. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of TVR, death, reinfarction and the incidence of bleeding events between the two groups.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis supports the use of IC over IV administration of tirofiban in patients with ACS to improve TIMI flow, TMP flow and MACE. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of bleeding complications between the two groups.

Dataset Information

The efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Publications

The efficacy and safety of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets