Suppr超能文献

高能与低能激光碎石术疗效相当:现有临床系列研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

High- and Low-Power Laser Lithotripsy Achieves Similar Results: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Available Clinical Series.

机构信息

GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.

Service d'Urologie, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Tenon, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.

出版信息

J Endourol. 2021 Aug;35(8):1146-1152. doi: 10.1089/end.2020.0090. Epub 2021 May 24.

Abstract

There is no clear evidence that high-power (HP) laser generators perform better than low-power (LP) ones in terms of lithotripsy outcomes. We aimed to perform a systematic review of literature to compare the efficacy outcomes of both HP and LP during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. A computerized bibliographic search of the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed for all studies reporting perioperative outcomes of HP and LP lithotripsy. Using the methodology recommended by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we identified 22 nonrandomized noncomparative retrospective studies published between 2015 and 2019 that were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Because of the lack of comparative studies, we decided to perform two separate meta-analytic syntheses for LP and HP studies, then we compared them using a Wald-type test. Overall, the selected studies included 6403 patients. Study design, exposure assessment, selection criteria, and outcome of interest were heterogeneous. LP studies were more common ( = 17, 77%), whereas HP studies were more common in the latest inclusion period. Faster lithotripsy (32.9 minutes 63.9 minutes,  < 0.01) was observed in HP studies. However, stone volume resulted twofold higher (2604 mm 1217 mm,  = 0.048) in LP studies. Pooled stone-free rate was similar in both LP and HP studies, 81% and 82%, respectively,  > 0.05. No difference in complication rate was observed between the two groups,  = 0.12. HP laser lithotripsy appears to require shorter operative time, with similar stone-free and complication rates as compared with LP traditional lithotripsy. However, when taking into account stone burden, this advantage seems to be lost, or at least not to be comparable with what observed in laboratory studies. Because of the lack of high-level comparative evidence, further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the benefits of using HP laser generators during ureteroscopic stone treatment.

摘要

没有明确的证据表明高能(HP)激光发生器在碎石效果方面优于低能(LP)激光发生器。我们旨在对文献进行系统综述,比较输尿管镜碎石术中高能和低能激光的疗效。通过计算机检索 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库,检索所有报道高能和低能碎石术围手术期结局的研究。根据系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)指南推荐的方法,我们确定了 2015 年至 2019 年期间发表的 22 项符合纳入标准的非随机非对照回顾性研究。由于缺乏对照研究,我们决定对 LP 和 HP 研究分别进行两次荟萃分析,然后使用 Wald 检验进行比较。

总的来说,纳入的研究包括 6403 名患者。研究设计、暴露评估、选择标准和关注结局存在异质性。LP 研究更常见( = 17,77%),而 HP 研究在最新纳入的时期更为常见。HP 研究中碎石时间更快(32.9 分钟比 63.9 分钟, < 0.01)。然而,LP 研究中结石体积增加了一倍(2604 mm 比 1217 mm, = 0.048)。LP 和 HP 研究的结石清除率分别为 81%和 82%,相似, > 0.05。两组并发症发生率无差异, = 0.12。

与 LP 传统碎石术相比,HP 激光碎石术似乎需要更短的手术时间,结石清除率和并发症发生率相似。然而,当考虑结石负担时,这种优势似乎消失,或者至少与实验室研究中观察到的情况无法相比。由于缺乏高级别的对照证据,需要进一步的临床研究来阐明在输尿管镜结石治疗中使用 HP 激光发生器的益处。

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