Dataset Information

The Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Our aim is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy to guide practitioners and inform guidelines.

Materials and methods

A detailed database search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science in October 2021 to identify articles pertaining to ECIRS published between 2001 and 2021.

Results

Four nonrandomized comparative studies and one RCT were identified, yielding five studies with a total of 546 patients (ECIRS/mini-ECIRS, n = 277; PCNL/mini-PCNL, n = 269). Subjects in these five studies met the predefined inclusion criteria established by two reviewers (J.E.A. and R.L.S.) and were therefore eligible for analysis. The results demonstrated that ECIRS was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.79, 6.33; p < 0.00001), fewer complications (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.97; p=0.04), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.55, -0.98; p < 0.00001) when compared to PCNL. There were no statistically significant differences in blood transfusions (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.12, 1.68; p=0.24), operative time (SMD: -1.05; 95% CI: -2.42, 0.31; p=0.13), or blood loss (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -2.46, 0.26; p=0.11) between ECIRS and PCNL.

Conclusions

ECIRS may be a more suitable approach for the surgical management of large and complex kidney stones currently indicating PCNL due to its superior efficacy with comparable surgical time and complication rate, though it is thought that a lack of resources and properly trained personnel may preclude ECIRS from becoming the standard. It is our impression that ECIRS may become the preferred technique in the endourologic community corresponding to the evolutionary sequence of percutaneous stone surgery.

SUBMITTER: Abdullatif VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9314160 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Objectives Kidney stone in children is a recurring problem that requires multiple interventions over time. Minimally-invasive approach, such as Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL) is recommended for moderately-sized stones. However, since ESWL is associated with multiple interventions, Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (Micro-PCNL) and Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) can also be considered to treat kidney stones in pediatric patients. Both approaches have their respective advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Micro-PCNL and RIRS in pediatric patients with kidney stones. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guideline and Cochrane Handbook of intervention. The included studies were obtained from the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. The protocol of this review has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021265894). The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, outcomes were analyzed using STATA®16, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results A total of 239 participants were included in this study, divided into the Micro-PCNL (n = 112) and RIRS (n = 127) procedure groups. Statistical analysis revealed a significantly lower requirement of postoperative stenting procedure in Micro-PCNL compared to RIRS (OR 0.09; 95%CI 0.02, 0.47; p < 0.01). However, no significant difference was found in stone-free rate (p = 0.86), operative time (p = 0.09), UTI incidence (p = 0.67), blood transfusion requirement (p = 0.95), and length of stay (p = 0.77). Conclusion Micro-PCNL is superior to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm in size based on their comparable SFR and fewer requirements of additional stenting procedures. Highlights • Micro-PCNL had a comparable SFR to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.• Micro-PCNL had less requirement of stenting procedure than RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.• Micro-PCNL is superior to RIRS in managing pediatric kidney stones,10–20 mm.

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.