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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bai, Yunjin, Tang, Yin, Deng, Lan, Wang, Xiaoming, Yang, Yubo, Wang, Jia, Han, Ping
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