The Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.8 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Advances in Urology Pub Date : 2022-07-18 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/1716554
Victor A Abdullatif, Roger L Sur, Ziad A Abdullatif, Sharon R Szabo, Joel E Abbott
{"title":"The Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Combined Intrarenal Surgery (ECIRS) versus Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Victor A Abdullatif,&nbsp;Roger L Sur,&nbsp;Ziad A Abdullatif,&nbsp;Sharon R Szabo,&nbsp;Joel E Abbott","doi":"10.1155/2022/1716554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Our aim is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy to guide practitioners and inform guidelines.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A detailed database search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science in October 2021 to identify articles pertaining to ECIRS published between 2001 and 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Four nonrandomized comparative studies and one RCT were identified, yielding five studies with a total of 546 patients (ECIRS/mini-ECIRS, <i>n</i> = 277; PCNL/mini-PCNL, <i>n</i> = 269). Subjects in these five studies met the predefined inclusion criteria established by two reviewers (J.E.A. and R.L.S.) and were therefore eligible for analysis. The results demonstrated that ECIRS was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.79, 6.33; <i>p</i> < 0.00001), fewer complications (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.97; <i>p</i>=0.04), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.55, -0.98; <i>p</i> < 0.00001) when compared to PCNL. There were no statistically significant differences in blood transfusions (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.12, 1.68; <i>p</i>=0.24), operative time (SMD: -1.05; 95% CI: -2.42, 0.31; <i>p</i>=0.13), or blood loss (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -2.46, 0.26; <i>p</i>=0.11) between ECIRS and PCNL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ECIRS may be a more suitable approach for the surgical management of large and complex kidney stones currently indicating PCNL due to its superior efficacy with comparable surgical time and complication rate, though it is thought that a lack of resources and properly trained personnel may preclude ECIRS from becoming the standard. It is our impression that ECIRS may become the preferred technique in the endourologic community corresponding to the evolutionary sequence of percutaneous stone surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":7490,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314160/pdf/","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1716554","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Purpose: Our aim is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy to guide practitioners and inform guidelines.

Materials and methods: A detailed database search was performed in PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science in October 2021 to identify articles pertaining to ECIRS published between 2001 and 2021.

Results: Four nonrandomized comparative studies and one RCT were identified, yielding five studies with a total of 546 patients (ECIRS/mini-ECIRS, n = 277; PCNL/mini-PCNL, n = 269). Subjects in these five studies met the predefined inclusion criteria established by two reviewers (J.E.A. and R.L.S.) and were therefore eligible for analysis. The results demonstrated that ECIRS was associated with a higher SFR (OR: 4.20; 95% CI: 2.79, 6.33; p < 0.00001), fewer complications (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41, 0.97; p=0.04), and a shorter hospital stay (WMD: -1.27; 95% CI: -1.55, -0.98; p < 0.00001) when compared to PCNL. There were no statistically significant differences in blood transfusions (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.12, 1.68; p=0.24), operative time (SMD: -1.05; 95% CI: -2.42, 0.31; p=0.13), or blood loss (SMD: -1.10; 95% CI: -2.46, 0.26; p=0.11) between ECIRS and PCNL.

Conclusions: ECIRS may be a more suitable approach for the surgical management of large and complex kidney stones currently indicating PCNL due to its superior efficacy with comparable surgical time and complication rate, though it is thought that a lack of resources and properly trained personnel may preclude ECIRS from becoming the standard. It is our impression that ECIRS may become the preferred technique in the endourologic community corresponding to the evolutionary sequence of percutaneous stone surgery.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

内镜联合肾内手术(ECIRS)与经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的安全性和有效性:一项系统综述和meta分析。
目的:我们的目的是评估内窥镜联合肾内手术与经皮肾镜取石术的安全性和有效性,以指导医生和指导方针。材料和方法:于2021年10月在PubMed、OVID、Scopus和Web of Science中进行了详细的数据库检索,以确定2001年至2021年间发表的有关ECIRS的文章。结果:纳入4项非随机对照研究和1项随机对照试验,共纳入5项研究,共546例患者(ECIRS/mini-ECIRS, n = 277;PCNL/mini-PCNL, n = 269)。这五项研究的受试者均符合两位审稿人(J.E.A.和R.L.S.)预先确定的纳入标准,因此有资格进行分析。结果表明,ECIRS与较高的SFR相关(OR: 4.20;95% ci: 2.79, 6.33;p < 0.00001),并发症较少(OR: 0.63;95% ci: 0.41, 0.97;p=0.04),住院时间较短(WMD: -1.27;95% ci: -1.55, -0.98;p < 0.00001)。两组输血量差异无统计学意义(OR: 0.45;95% ci: 0.12, 1.68;p=0.24)、手术时间(SMD: -1.05;95% ci: -2.42, 0.31;p=0.13),或失血量(SMD: -1.10;95% ci: -2.46, 0.26;p=0.11)。结论:ECIRS可能是目前提示PCNL的大而复杂的肾结石手术治疗更合适的方法,因为其疗效优越,手术时间和并发症发生率相当,但由于缺乏资源和训练有素的人员,ECIRS可能无法成为标准。根据经皮结石手术的进化顺序,我们认为ECIRS可能成为泌尿系统内首选的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Advances in Urology
Advances in Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Advances in Urology is a peer-reviewed, open access journal that publishes state-of-the-art reviews and original research papers of wide interest in all fields of urology. The journal strives to provide publication of important manuscripts to the widest possible audience worldwide, without the constraints of expensive, hard-to-access, traditional bound journals. Advances in Urology is designed to improve publication access of both well-established urologic scientists and less well-established writers, by allowing interested scientists worldwide to participate fully.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信