Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2022 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | International Braz J Urol (Online) |
Texto Completo: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382022000400637 |
Resumo: | ABSTRACT Background The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. Trial registration This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893. |
id |
SBU-1_80f157ae01c04e9a7c41523af0f0b0c7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:scielo:S1677-55382022000400637 |
network_acronym_str |
SBU-1 |
network_name_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysisNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousKidney CalculiMeta-Analysis as TopicABSTRACT Background The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. Trial registration This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2022-08-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382022000400637International braz j urol v.48 n.4 2022reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2021.0347info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessQin,PengfeiZhang,DongHuang,TingFang,LiCheng,Yueeng2022-07-22T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382022000400637Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2022-07-22T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
spellingShingle |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis Qin,Pengfei Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Kidney Calculi Meta-Analysis as Topic |
title_short |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort |
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
author |
Qin,Pengfei |
author_facet |
Qin,Pengfei Zhang,Dong Huang,Ting Fang,Li Cheng,Yue |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Zhang,Dong Huang,Ting Fang,Li Cheng,Yue |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Qin,Pengfei Zhang,Dong Huang,Ting Fang,Li Cheng,Yue |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Kidney Calculi Meta-Analysis as Topic |
topic |
Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous Kidney Calculi Meta-Analysis as Topic |
description |
ABSTRACT Background The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. Trial registration This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893. |
publishDate |
2022 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2022-08-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382022000400637 |
url |
http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382022000400637 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2021.0347 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
text/html |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
International braz j urol v.48 n.4 2022 reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online) instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) instacron:SBU |
instname_str |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
instacron_str |
SBU |
institution |
SBU |
reponame_str |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
collection |
International Braz J Urol (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br |
_version_ |
1750318078349017088 |