Cargando…
Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the standard procedure for large (≥2 cm) renal calculi; however, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) can be used as an alternative management procedure. The aim of present study was to compare LPL and PCNL in terms of efficacy and safety for the...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28859655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7 |
_version_ | 1783260886357508096 |
---|---|
author | Bai, Yunjin Tang, Yin Deng, Lan Wang, Xiaoming Yang, Yubo Wang, Jia Han, Ping |
author_facet | Bai, Yunjin Tang, Yin Deng, Lan Wang, Xiaoming Yang, Yubo Wang, Jia Han, Ping |
author_sort | Bai, Yunjin |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the standard procedure for large (≥2 cm) renal calculi; however, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) can be used as an alternative management procedure. The aim of present study was to compare LPL and PCNL in terms of efficacy and safety for the management of large renal pelvic stones. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Jan 2016 using electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and EMBASE) to identify relevant studies for the meta-analysis. Only comparative studies investigating LPL versus PCNL were included. Effect sizes were estimated by pooled odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Five randomized and nine non-randomized studies were identified for analysis, involving a total of 901 patients. Compared with PCNL, LPL provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 2.06–7.55, P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13–0.61, P = 0.001), lower bleeding rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.61, P = 0.005), fewer hemoglobin decrease(MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.97 to −0.63, P < 0.001), less postoperative fever (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21–0.68; P = 0.001), and lower auxiliary procedure rate (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12–0.46, P < 0.001) and re-treatment rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07–0.55, P = 0.002). However, LPL had a longer operative time and hospital stay. There were no significant differences in conversion to open surgery and prolonged urine leakage rates between LPL and PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: Our present findings suggest that LPL is a safe and effective approach for management of patients with large renal stones. However, PCNL still suitable for most cases and LPL can be used as an alternative management procedure with good selection of cases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5580319 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55803192017-09-07 Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy Bai, Yunjin Tang, Yin Deng, Lan Wang, Xiaoming Yang, Yubo Wang, Jia Han, Ping BMC Urol Research Article BACKGROUND: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) remains the standard procedure for large (≥2 cm) renal calculi; however, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) can be used as an alternative management procedure. The aim of present study was to compare LPL and PCNL in terms of efficacy and safety for the management of large renal pelvic stones. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Jan 2016 using electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and EMBASE) to identify relevant studies for the meta-analysis. Only comparative studies investigating LPL versus PCNL were included. Effect sizes were estimated by pooled odds ratio (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Five randomized and nine non-randomized studies were identified for analysis, involving a total of 901 patients. Compared with PCNL, LPL provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (OR 3.94, 95% CI 2.06–7.55, P < 0.001), lower blood transfusion rate (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13–0.61, P = 0.001), lower bleeding rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06–0.61, P = 0.005), fewer hemoglobin decrease(MD -0.80, 95% CI -0.97 to −0.63, P < 0.001), less postoperative fever (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21–0.68; P = 0.001), and lower auxiliary procedure rate (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.12–0.46, P < 0.001) and re-treatment rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07–0.55, P = 0.002). However, LPL had a longer operative time and hospital stay. There were no significant differences in conversion to open surgery and prolonged urine leakage rates between LPL and PCNL. CONCLUSIONS: Our present findings suggest that LPL is a safe and effective approach for management of patients with large renal stones. However, PCNL still suitable for most cases and LPL can be used as an alternative management procedure with good selection of cases. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5580319/ /pubmed/28859655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bai, Yunjin Tang, Yin Deng, Lan Wang, Xiaoming Yang, Yubo Wang, Jia Han, Ping Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title | Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title_full | Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title_fullStr | Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title_full_unstemmed | Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title_short | Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
title_sort | management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5580319/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28859655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baiyunjin managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT tangyin managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT denglan managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT wangxiaoming managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT yangyubo managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT wangjia managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy AT hanping managementoflargerenalstoneslaparoscopicpyelolithotomyversuspercutaneousnephrolithotomy |