Suppr超能文献

1-2厘米大小的肾下盏结石手术治疗的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的网状Meta分析

Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1-2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

作者信息

Awedew Atalel Fentahun, Seman Yakob Sheiferawe, Yalew Dawit Zerihun, Wondmeneh Yohannes Chemere, Yigzaw Wassie Almaw

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

出版信息

Urolithiasis. 2023 May 15;51(1):82. doi: 10.1007/s00240-023-01454-2.

Abstract

The management of medium-sized (1-2 cm) lower poles renal stone has been a contentious topic for endourologists. There are limited evidences to answer the best management options for medium-sized lower pole renal stone. This network meta-analysis provided high-level evidences on efficacy and safety of profile of PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, RIRS, Micro-PCNL, SWL for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. Systemic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials was conducted. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) approach was used to look for relevant studies. Searches were conducted at major electronic databases like Medline via PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to find relevant articles from the inception to April 19, 2023. Fourteen randomized control trials involving 2194 patients were among these studies that met the eligibility criteria. Pooled SFR was Mini-PNCL 98% (95% CI 96-99%), Ultara-PCNL 96% (95% CI 93-98%), RIRS 90% (95% CI 88-92%), PCNL 88% (95% CI 85-92%), Micro-PCNL 77% (61-88%) and SWL 69% (95% CI 65-74%). Mini-PCNL provided a statistically significant higher SFR compared to RIRS (RR = 2.43 91.52; 3.89)), Micro-PCNL (RR = 3.19 (1.09; 9.38)), and SWL (RR = 6.17 (3.65; 10.44)), but there was no statistical significance with standard PCNL (RR = 1.06 (0.52; 2.16)) and Ultra-PCNL (RR = 1.37 (0.75; 2.51)) for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. The order of SUCRA values for complication rate was as follows: PCNL(90%), Micro-PCNL(70%), Mini-PCNL(50%), Ultra-PCNL(50%), RIRS(40%), and SWL(10%). The current pooled evidence from fourteen randomized control trials revealed that Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, and standard PCNL are likely the best treatments for medium-sized lower poles when SFR over a short period of minimal session is a priority. These treatment options have a higher rate of complications, longer hospital stays, and acceptable operations time. RIRS and SWL treatment have acceptable efficacy stone-free rate with low complication rate, short hospital stays, and operation time. These treatment option would be the best fit for solitary kidney, coagulopathy, and comorbidity.

摘要

中等大小(1 - 2厘米)下极肾结石的治疗一直是腔内泌尿外科医生争论的话题。对于中等大小下极肾结石的最佳治疗方案,现有证据有限。这项网络荟萃分析提供了关于经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)、迷你经皮肾镜取石术(Mini-PCNL)、超微经皮肾镜取石术(Ultra-PCNL)、逆行肾内手术(RIRS)、微通道经皮肾镜取石术(Micro-PCNL)、体外冲击波碎石术(SWL)治疗中等大小下极肾结石的疗效和安全性的高级证据。我们进行了随机对照试验的系统评价和网络荟萃分析(NMA)。采用PICOS(人群、干预措施、对照、结局和研究)方法来寻找相关研究。在主要电子数据库(如通过PubMed的Medline、Embase、谷歌学术、SCOPUS、ScienceDirect、考克兰图书馆、科学网和ClinicalTrials.gov)进行检索,以查找从起始到2023年4月19日的相关文章。在这些符合纳入标准的研究中,有14项涉及2194例患者的随机对照试验。汇总结石清除率(SFR)分别为:迷你经皮肾镜取石术98%(95%置信区间96 - 99%),超微经皮肾镜取石术96%(95%置信区间93 - 98%),逆行肾内手术90%(95%置信区间88 - 92%),经皮肾镜取石术88%(95%置信区间85 - 92%),微通道经皮肾镜取石术77%(61 - 88%),体外冲击波碎石术69%(95%置信区间65 - 74%)。与逆行肾内手术(RR = 2.43(1.52;3.89))、微通道经皮肾镜取石术(RR = 3.19(1.09;9.38))和体外冲击波碎石术(RR = 6.17(3.65;10.44))相比,迷你经皮肾镜取石术的结石清除率在统计学上显著更高,但与标准经皮肾镜取石术(RR = 1.06(0.52;2.16))和超微经皮肾镜取石术(RR = 1.37(0.75;2.51))相比,在治疗中等大小下极肾结石方面无统计学差异。并发症发生率的累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)值顺序如下:经皮肾镜取石术(90%)、微通道经皮肾镜取石术(70%)、迷你经皮肾镜取石术(50%)、超微经皮肾镜取石术(50%)、逆行肾内手术(40%)和体外冲击波碎石术(10%)。来自14项随机对照试验的当前汇总证据表明,当短期最少手术次数的结石清除率是首要考虑因素时,迷你经皮肾镜取石术、超微经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术可能是治疗中等大小下极肾结石的最佳方法。这些治疗选择并发症发生率较高、住院时间较长且手术时间可接受。逆行肾内手术和体外冲击波碎石术治疗结石清除率疗效可接受,并发症发生率低,住院时间短且手术时间短。这些治疗选择最适合孤立肾、凝血功能障碍和合并症患者。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验