Suppr超能文献

小型经皮肾镜取石术与逆行肾内手术不同通道大小的系统评价和Meta分析

Different Tract Sizes of Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Gao Xiao-Shuai, Liao Bang-Hua, Chen Yun-Tian, Feng Shi-Jian, Gao Rang, Luo De-Yi, Liu Jia-Ming, Wang Kun-Jie

机构信息

Department of Urology, Institute of Urology (Laboratory of Reconstructive Urology), West China Hospital, Sichuan University , Chengdu, P.R. China .

出版信息

J Endourol. 2017 Nov;31(11):1101-1110. doi: 10.1089/end.2017.0547. Epub 2017 Oct 30.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL), including minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), ultramini-PCNL, and micro-PCNL, have been developed recently. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety and efficacy of different tract sizes of MPCNL with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of kidney stones.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science to identify case-control trials and randomized controlled trials, which evaluated MPCNL vs RIRS before February 2017. Two reviewers independently evaluated the methodologic quality of the included studies, and the disagreements were solved by discussion. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Fourteen publications involving 1279 patients were included. Mini-PCNL provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (SFR; odds ratio [OR] OR 1.66; p = 0.005), especially for lower pole renal stones (OR 2.65; p = 0.003), but brought longer hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] 1.23; p = 0.0001) and larger hemoglobin drop (WMD 0.77; p < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences between mini-PCNL and RIRS in the complications (OR 0.77; p = 0.23) and operative time (WMD: -6.52; p = 0.42). For ultramini-PCNL and micro-PCNL, the safety and efficacy were similar to RIRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-PCNL offers a significantly higher SFR than RIRS, for lower pole renal stones, the advantage of mini-PCNL is more obvious. However, RIRS is associated with shorter hospital stay and less hemoglobin drop. For ultramini-PCNL and micro-PCNL, tract size is smaller than mini-PCNL, and the SFR is similar to RIRS. In terms of the evidence at present, we recommend mini-PCNL for patients focusing more on the high SFR.

摘要

目的

近年来已开展了包括微通道经皮肾镜取石术(MPCNL)、微通道经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)、超微通道PCNL及微通道PCNL在内的小型化经皮肾镜取石术。本荟萃分析旨在比较不同通道大小的MPCNL与逆行性肾内手术(RIRS)治疗肾结石的安全性和有效性。

材料与方法

检索PubMed、Embase及科学网,以识别2017年2月之前评估MPCNL与RIRS的病例对照试验和随机对照试验。两名评价者独立评估纳入研究的方法学质量,分歧通过讨论解决。使用Review Manager 5.3软件进行荟萃分析。

结果

纳入了涉及1279例患者的14篇文献。微通道PCNL的结石清除率(SFR)显著更高(优势比[OR]为1.66;p = 0.005),尤其是对于下极肾结石(OR为2.65;p = 0.003),但住院时间更长(加权均数差[WMD]为1.23;p = 0.0001)且血红蛋白下降幅度更大(WMD为0.77;p < 0.00001)。微通道PCNL与RIRS在并发症(OR为0.77;p = 0.23)和手术时间(WMD:-6.52;p = 0.42)方面无统计学显著差异。对于超微通道PCNL和微通道PCNL,其安全性和有效性与RIRS相似。

结论

微通道PCNL的SFR显著高于RIRS,对于下极肾结石,微通道PCNL的优势更为明显。然而,RIRS与较短的住院时间和较少的血红蛋白下降相关。对于超微通道PCNL和微通道PCNL,通道大小小于微通道PCNL,且SFR与RIRS相似。就目前的证据而言,对于更关注高SFR的患者,我们推荐微通道PCNL。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验