Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Five Categories of Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Devices in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials.
Wenzhuo Zhang, Ziyu Ye, Shoule Wang, Baorong Feng, Wen Zhong
{"title":"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Five Categories of Intracorporeal Lithotripsy Devices in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Control Trials.","authors":"Wenzhuo Zhang, Ziyu Ye, Shoule Wang, Baorong Feng, Wen Zhong","doi":"10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257807.117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of five categories of intracorporeal lithotripsy devices in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Pneumatic lithotripters, ultrasonic lithotripters, double-probe dual-energy lithotripters, single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters and lasers.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A network meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were utilised to search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 10 August 2024. Surface under cumulative ranking area technique was used to rank interventions. Outcomes of interest included baseline characteristics, stone-free rate (SFR), complications, operative time and fragmentation time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen RCTs comprising 1516 procedures were included. No statistically significant difference was found in complications after using the devices. SPDE lithotripters (ratio of ratios (RR) = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.11 to 3.28)) and lasers (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.84) were associated with significantly higher SFR than pneumatic lithotripters. SPDE lithotripters significantly outperformed in decreasing operation time and fragmentation time. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, lasers and SPDE lithotripters performed better in SFR. In addition, SPDE lithotripters exhibited superior performance in terms of few complications and shortest fragmentation time and operative time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All five categories of devices were found to be equally safe for PCNL. SPDE lithotripters and lasers had higher efficacy. Moreover, SPDE lithotripters exhibited the shortest fragmentation time and operative time. These findings suggest that SPDE lithotripters have potential to be next-generation efficient lithotripsy devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48852,"journal":{"name":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","volume":"78 7","pages":"884-895"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivos Espanoles De Urologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56434/j.arch.esp.urol.20257807.117","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of five categories of intracorporeal lithotripsy devices in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): Pneumatic lithotripters, ultrasonic lithotripters, double-probe dual-energy lithotripters, single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters and lasers.
Methods: A network meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were utilised to search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 10 August 2024. Surface under cumulative ranking area technique was used to rank interventions. Outcomes of interest included baseline characteristics, stone-free rate (SFR), complications, operative time and fragmentation time.
Results: Fourteen RCTs comprising 1516 procedures were included. No statistically significant difference was found in complications after using the devices. SPDE lithotripters (ratio of ratios (RR) = 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) = (1.11 to 3.28)) and lasers (RR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.09 to 2.84) were associated with significantly higher SFR than pneumatic lithotripters. SPDE lithotripters significantly outperformed in decreasing operation time and fragmentation time. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, lasers and SPDE lithotripters performed better in SFR. In addition, SPDE lithotripters exhibited superior performance in terms of few complications and shortest fragmentation time and operative time.
Conclusions: All five categories of devices were found to be equally safe for PCNL. SPDE lithotripters and lasers had higher efficacy. Moreover, SPDE lithotripters exhibited the shortest fragmentation time and operative time. These findings suggest that SPDE lithotripters have potential to be next-generation efficient lithotripsy devices.
期刊介绍:
Archivos Españoles de Urología published since 1944, is an international peer review, susbscription Journal on Urology with original and review articles on different subjets in Urology: oncology, endourology, laparoscopic, andrology, lithiasis, pediatrics , urodynamics,... Case Report are also admitted.