Suppr超能文献

下盏结石的外科治疗的疗效和安全性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Efficacy and safety of the surgical treatments for lower calyceal stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Urology, Fourth Affiliated Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, China.

出版信息

Int J Surg. 2023 Mar 1;109(3):383-388. doi: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000062.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Efficacy and safety of five common surgical treatments for lower calyceal (LC) stones were assessed for LC stones 20 mm or less.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted up to June 2020 using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The study has been registered in PROSPERO, CRD42021228404. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of five common surgical treatments for LC stones were collected, including percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), mini-PCNL (MPCNL), ultramini-PCNL (UMPCNL), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by using global inconsistency and local inconsistency. Both pooled odds ratio, along with 95% credible interval (CI) and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were calculated to assess the outcomes, paired comparisons of efficacy and safety of five treatments.

RESULTS

Nine peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials, comprising 1674 patients in recent 10 years, were included. Heterogeneity tests showed no statistical significance, and a consistency model was chosen, respectively. The order of surface under the cumulative ranking curve values for efficacy was as follows: PCNL (79.4), MPCNL (75.2), UMPCNL (66.3), RIRS (29), and eSWL (0). For safety: eSWL (84.2), UMPCNL (82.2), RIRS (52.9), MPCNL (16.6), and PCNL (14.1).

CONCLUSION

In the current study, all five treatments are both effective and safe. Many factors must be considered to choose surgical treatments for LC stones 20 mm or less; the results that we separate conventional PCNL into PCNL, MPCNL, and UMPCNL make the questions even more controversial. However, relative judgments are still needed to be used as reference data in clinical management. For efficacy, PCNL>MPCNL>UMPCNL>RIRS>ESWL, ESWL is statistically inferior to the other four treatments, respectively. RIRS is statistically inferior to PCNL and MPCNL, respectively. For safety, ESWL>UMPCNL>RIRS>MPCNL>PCNL, ESWL is statistically superior to RIRS, MPCNL, and PCNL, respectively. RIRS is statistically superior to PCNL. We cannot reach conclusions about which surgical treatment is the best choice for all patients with LC stones 20 mm or less; therefore, tailored treatments based on individual patients still demand more attention than ever before for both patients and urologists.

摘要

目的

评估 20mm 或以下下盏结石的五种常见手术治疗方法的疗效和安全性。

方法

系统检索 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library 截至 2020 年 6 月的文献。研究已在 PROSPERO 注册,CRD42021228404。收集评估五种常见下盏结石手术治疗方法(经皮肾镜取石术[PCNL]、微通道 PCNL [MPCNL]、超细通道 PCNL [UMPCNL]、体外冲击波碎石术[ESWL]和逆行肾内手术[RIRS])疗效和安全性的随机对照试验。采用全局不一致性和局部不一致性评估研究间的异质性。计算合并优势比(OR)、95%可信区间(CI)和累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)值,以评估疗效和五种治疗方法的安全性。

结果

纳入了近 10 年的 9 项同行评审的随机对照试验,共纳入 1674 例患者。异质性检验无统计学意义,分别选择一致性模型。疗效的 SUCRA 值排序如下:PCNL(79.4)、MPCNL(75.2)、UMPCNL(66.3)、RIRS(29)和 ESWL(0)。安全性:ESWL(84.2)、UMPCNL(82.2)、RIRS(52.9)、MPCNL(16.6)和 PCNL(14.1)。

结论

在目前的研究中,所有五种治疗方法均有效且安全。对于 20mm 或以下的下盏结石,需要考虑许多因素来选择手术治疗方法;我们将传统的 PCNL 分为 PCNL、MPCNL 和 UMPCNL,这使得问题更加有争议。然而,相对判断仍然需要作为临床管理的参考数据。在疗效方面,PCNL>MPCNL>UMPCNL>RIRS>ESWL,ESWL 在统计学上分别劣于其他四种治疗方法。RIRS 在统计学上分别劣于 PCNL 和 MPCNL。在安全性方面,ESWL>UMPCNL>RIRS>MPCNL>PCNL,ESWL 在统计学上分别优于 RIRS、MPCNL 和 PCNL。RIRS 在统计学上优于 PCNL。我们无法得出哪种手术治疗方法对所有 20mm 或以下下盏结石患者都是最佳选择的结论;因此,基于个体患者的个体化治疗比以往任何时候都更需要患者和泌尿科医生的关注。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/438a/10389214/83479e08115f/js9-109-383-g001.jpg

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