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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Zewu,Zhu
Data de Publicação: 2019
Outros Autores: Cui,Yu, Feng,Zeng, Yang,Li, Chen,Hequn
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=S1677-55382019000100010
Resumo: ABSTRACT 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.
id SBU-1_facb2c7f787fc23e62625ee474885568
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1677-55382019000100010
network_acronym_str SBU-1
network_name_str International Braz J Urol (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic reviewUreteroscopyNephrolithotomyPercutaneousKidney CalculiABSTRACT 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.Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia2019-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000100010International braz j urol v.45 n.1 2019reponame:International Braz J Urol (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)instacron:SBU10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0510info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessZewu,ZhuCui,YuFeng,ZengYang,LiChen,Hequneng2019-03-18T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1677-55382019000100010Revistahttp://www.brazjurol.com.br/ONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||brazjurol@brazjurol.com.br1677-61191677-5538opendoar:2019-03-18T00:00International Braz J Urol (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia (SBU)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
title Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
spellingShingle Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
Zewu,Zhu
Ureteroscopy
Nephrolithotomy
Percutaneous
Kidney Calculi
title_short Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
title_fullStr Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
title_sort Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review
author Zewu,Zhu
author_facet Zewu,Zhu
Cui,Yu
Feng,Zeng
Yang,Li
Chen,Hequn
author_role author
author2 Cui,Yu
Feng,Zeng
Yang,Li
Chen,Hequn
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Zewu,Zhu
Cui,Yu
Feng,Zeng
Yang,Li
Chen,Hequn
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Ureteroscopy
Nephrolithotomy
Percutaneous
Kidney Calculi
topic Ureteroscopy
Nephrolithotomy
Percutaneous
Kidney Calculi
description ABSTRACT 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.
publishDate 2019
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2019-01-01
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=S1677-55382019000100010
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382019000100010
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0510
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.45 n.1 2019
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_ 1750318076706947072