Cargando…

Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Li...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Xiaohang, Li, Jiuzhi, Zhu, Wei, Duan, Xiaolu, Zhao, Zhijian, Deng, Tuo, Duan, Haifeng, Zeng, Guohua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30339676
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206048
_version_ 1783364370818924544
author Li, Xiaohang
Li, Jiuzhi
Zhu, Wei
Duan, Xiaolu
Zhao, Zhijian
Deng, Tuo
Duan, Haifeng
Zeng, Guohua
author_facet Li, Xiaohang
Li, Jiuzhi
Zhu, Wei
Duan, Xiaolu
Zhao, Zhijian
Deng, Tuo
Duan, Haifeng
Zeng, Guohua
author_sort Li, Xiaohang
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Summarized mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the differences in outcomes between Microperc and RIRS. RESULTS: A total of nine studies (7 in adult patients and 2 in pediatric patients) containing 842 patients (381 Microperc cases and 461 RIRS cases) with renal stones were included in this analysis. Among the adult patients, Microperc was associated with higher stone-free rate(SFR)(OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.48), significantly longer hospital stays (MD: 0.66 day; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.15), longer fluoroscopy time (MD: 78.12 s; 95% CI, 66.08 to 90.15), and larger decreases in hemoglobin (MD: 0.59 g/dl; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02) than was RIRS. No significant differences were observed with respect to operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate or auxiliary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that Microperc might be more effective in adult patients than RIRS will due to its higher SFR. However, longer hospital stays, longer fluoroscopy time and a larger decrease in hemoglobin should be considered cautiously.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6195289
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61952892018-11-19 Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis Li, Xiaohang Li, Jiuzhi Zhu, Wei Duan, Xiaolu Zhao, Zhijian Deng, Tuo Duan, Haifeng Zeng, Guohua PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Summarized mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the differences in outcomes between Microperc and RIRS. RESULTS: A total of nine studies (7 in adult patients and 2 in pediatric patients) containing 842 patients (381 Microperc cases and 461 RIRS cases) with renal stones were included in this analysis. Among the adult patients, Microperc was associated with higher stone-free rate(SFR)(OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.48), significantly longer hospital stays (MD: 0.66 day; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.15), longer fluoroscopy time (MD: 78.12 s; 95% CI, 66.08 to 90.15), and larger decreases in hemoglobin (MD: 0.59 g/dl; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02) than was RIRS. No significant differences were observed with respect to operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate or auxiliary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that Microperc might be more effective in adult patients than RIRS will due to its higher SFR. However, longer hospital stays, longer fluoroscopy time and a larger decrease in hemoglobin should be considered cautiously. Public Library of Science 2018-10-19 /pmc/articles/PMC6195289/ /pubmed/30339676 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206048 Text en © 2018 Li et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Li, Xiaohang
Li, Jiuzhi
Zhu, Wei
Duan, Xiaolu
Zhao, Zhijian
Deng, Tuo
Duan, Haifeng
Zeng, Guohua
Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195289/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30339676
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206048
work_keys_str_mv AT lixiaohang micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lijiuzhi micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhuwei micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT duanxiaolu micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaozhijian micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dengtuo micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT duanhaifeng micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zengguohua micropercutaneousnephrolithotomyversusretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryinthetreatmentofrenalstonesasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis