Cargando…

Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of vacuum-assisted sheaths and conventional sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhu, Ling, Wang, Zhenghao, Zhou, Ye, Gou, Liping, Huang, Yan, Zheng, Xiaofeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8591951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34781950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00925-1
_version_ 1784599366099533824
author Zhu, Ling
Wang, Zhenghao
Zhou, Ye
Gou, Liping
Huang, Yan
Zheng, Xiaofeng
author_facet Zhu, Ling
Wang, Zhenghao
Zhou, Ye
Gou, Liping
Huang, Yan
Zheng, Xiaofeng
author_sort Zhu, Ling
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of vacuum-assisted sheaths and conventional sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases (updated March 2021) were used to search for studies assessing the effect of vacuum-assisted sheaths in patients who underwent MPCNL. The search strategy and study selection processes were implemented in accordance with the PRISMA statement. RESULT: Three randomized controlled trials and two case-controlled trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Overall, the stone-free rate (SFR) in patients who underwent vacuum-assisted sheaths was significantly higher than that in patients who underwent conventional sheaths (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.46, P = 0.02), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 72%, P = 0.03). In terms of the outcome of complications, vacuum-assisted sheath could bring a benefit to the postoperative infection rate (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.68). There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion rate (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07, 1.73, P = 0.17), with significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 66%, P = 0.35). Three studies contained operative time data, and the results indicated that the vacuum-assisted sheath led to a shorter operative time (MD = − 15.74; 95% CI − 1944, − 12.04, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.91). CONCLUSION: The application of a vacuum-assisted sheath in MPCNL improves the safety and efficiency compared to the conventional sheath. A vacuum-assisted sheath significantly increases the SFR while reducing operative time and postoperative infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8591951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85919512021-11-15 Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Zhu, Ling Wang, Zhenghao Zhou, Ye Gou, Liping Huang, Yan Zheng, Xiaofeng BMC Urol Research BACKGROUND: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of vacuum-assisted sheaths and conventional sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases (updated March 2021) were used to search for studies assessing the effect of vacuum-assisted sheaths in patients who underwent MPCNL. The search strategy and study selection processes were implemented in accordance with the PRISMA statement. RESULT: Three randomized controlled trials and two case-controlled trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Overall, the stone-free rate (SFR) in patients who underwent vacuum-assisted sheaths was significantly higher than that in patients who underwent conventional sheaths (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.46, P = 0.02), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 72%, P = 0.03). In terms of the outcome of complications, vacuum-assisted sheath could bring a benefit to the postoperative infection rate (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.68). There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion rate (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07, 1.73, P = 0.17), with significant heterogeneity (I(2) = 66%, P = 0.35). Three studies contained operative time data, and the results indicated that the vacuum-assisted sheath led to a shorter operative time (MD = − 15.74; 95% CI − 1944, − 12.04, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, P = 0.91). CONCLUSION: The application of a vacuum-assisted sheath in MPCNL improves the safety and efficiency compared to the conventional sheath. A vacuum-assisted sheath significantly increases the SFR while reducing operative time and postoperative infection. BioMed Central 2021-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8591951/ /pubmed/34781950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00925-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Zhu, Ling
Wang, Zhenghao
Zhou, Ye
Gou, Liping
Huang, Yan
Zheng, Xiaofeng
Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8591951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34781950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00925-1
work_keys_str_mv AT zhuling comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangzhenghao comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhouye comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT gouliping comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huangyan comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhengxiaofeng comparisonofvacuumassistedsheathsandnormalsheathsinminimallyinvasivepercutaneousnephrolithotomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis