• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

日间经皮肾镜取石术与传统住院手术的比较结果:系统评价与Meta分析

Comparative Outcomes of Day-case Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Conventional Inpatient Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Calvillo-Ramirez Alejandro, Angulo-Lozano Juan Carlos, Acevedo-Rodriguez Jessica Edith, Vidal-Valderrama Carlos Esteban, Antunez-Perez Raul

机构信息

Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara, Facultad de Medicina, Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico.

Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.

出版信息

Urology. 2025 Jan;195:214-226. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.09.036. Epub 2024 Sep 21.

DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2024.09.036
PMID:39313005
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCNL performed as a day-case surgery in comparison to inpatient PCNL.

METHODS

Databases were searched up to January 27, 2024, for randomized and non-randomized studies comparing outcomes between day-case PCNL and inpatient PCNL. Pooled data were analyzed using a random-effects (RE) model when Higgins I2% heterogeneity values were >50%; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was employed. The results were reported as odds ratios (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized MD (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was set at P <.05.

RESULTS

One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 14 observational studies totaling 1574 patients were included. Pooled results revealed that patients in the day-case PCNL group experienced reduced blood loss (SMD -0.71 95% CI: [-1.31, -0.12] P .02) and transfusion rates (OR 0.10 95% CI: [0.03, 0.39], P .0008), lower overall and minor complications (OR 0.56, 95% CI: [0.42, 0.76], P .0002, and OR 0.52, 95% CI: [0.37, 0-73], P .0002, respectively), shorter operative time (MD -11.46, 95% CI: [-17.41, -5-50], P <.00001), and reduced total costs (MD -1597.18, 95% CI [-2436.42, -757.93], P .0002). Major complications, stone-free rate (SFR), emergency department (ED) visits, and readmission rates were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Day-case PCNL is a feasible and safe alternative to inpatient PCNL surgery in carefully selected patients, without increasing the risk of complications or readmission rates, and is likely to reduce total costs.

摘要

目的

进行一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估日间经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)与住院PCNL相比的有效性和安全性。

方法

检索截至2024年1月27日的数据库,查找比较日间PCNL和住院PCNL结局的随机和非随机研究。当希金斯I²%异质性值>50%时,使用随机效应(RE)模型分析汇总数据;否则,采用固定效应模型。结果以比值比(OR)、平均差(MD)或标准化平均差(SMD)及95%置信区间(CI)报告。设定统计学显著性为P<0.05。

结果

纳入1项随机对照试验(RCT)和14项观察性研究,共1574例患者。汇总结果显示,日间PCNL组患者的失血量减少(SMD -0.71,95% CI:[-1.31,-0.12],P = 0.02)、输血率降低(OR 0.10,95% CI:[0.03,0.39],P = 0.0008),总体和轻微并发症发生率较低(分别为OR 0.56,95% CI:[0.42,0.76],P = 0.0002;以及OR 0.52,95% CI:[0.37,0.73],P = 0.0002),手术时间更短(MD -11.46,95% CI:[-17.41,-5.50],P<0.00001),总成本降低(MD -1597.18,95% CI [-2436.42,-757.93],P = 0.0002)。两组之间的主要并发症、结石清除率(SFR)、急诊科就诊率和再入院率相似。

结论

对于精心挑选的患者,日间PCNL是住院PCNL手术的一种可行且安全的替代方案,不会增加并发症风险或再入院率,且可能降低总成本。

相似文献

1
Comparative Outcomes of Day-case Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Versus Conventional Inpatient Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.日间经皮肾镜取石术与传统住院手术的比较结果:系统评价与Meta分析
Urology. 2025 Jan;195:214-226. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.09.036. Epub 2024 Sep 21.
2
Comparing ambulatory to inpatient percutaneous nephrolithotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.门诊与住院经皮肾镜取石术的比较:系统评价与荟萃分析。
BJU Int. 2025 Mar;135(3):380-389. doi: 10.1111/bju.16601. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
3
Complications and outcomes of tubeless versus nephrostomy tube in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.经皮肾镜取石术中无管与肾造瘘管的并发症和结局:随机临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。
Urolithiasis. 2022 Oct;50(5):511-522. doi: 10.1007/s00240-022-01337-y. Epub 2022 Jun 8.
4
Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.氨甲环酸在经皮肾镜碎石术中的应用。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Oct 26;10(10):CD015122. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015122.pub2.
5
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones in adults.经皮肾镜碎石术与逆行性肾内手术治疗成人肾结石。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Nov 13;11(11):CD013445. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013445.pub2.
6
Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.比较微创经皮肾镜取石术和标准经皮肾镜取石术治疗>2cm 肾结石:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int Braz J Urol. 2022 Jul-Aug;48(4):637-648. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2021.0347.
7
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.体外冲击波碎石术 (ESWL) 与经皮肾镜碎石取石术 (PCNL) 或逆行肾内手术 (RIRS) 治疗肾结石的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Aug 1;8(8):CD007044. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub4.
8
Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs flexible ureteroscopy for 1-2 cm lower pole renal stones: a randomised controlled trial.微创经皮肾镜取石术与输尿管软镜治疗1-2厘米下极肾结石的随机对照试验
BJU Int. 2025 Mar;135(3):437-445. doi: 10.1111/bju.16567. Epub 2024 Oct 22.
9
Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery versus percutaneuos nephrolithotomy for complex pediatric stone disease: A comparative analysis of efficacy and safety.内镜下联合肾内手术与经皮肾镜碎石术治疗复杂小儿肾结石病:疗效和安全性的对比分析。
J Pediatr Urol. 2024 Aug;20(4):606.e1-606.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.05.025. Epub 2024 May 31.
10
Intravenous magnesium sulphate and sotalol for prevention of atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review and economic evaluation.静脉注射硫酸镁和索他洛尔预防冠状动脉搭桥术后房颤:系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2008 Jun;12(28):iii-iv, ix-95. doi: 10.3310/hta12280.

引用本文的文献

1
Insights and outcomes of day-case percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.日间经皮肾镜取石术的见解与结果:系统评价和单臂荟萃分析的结果
Ther Adv Urol. 2025 Oct 23;17:17562872251389084. doi: 10.1177/17562872251389084. eCollection 2025 Jan-Dec.