Prone versus supine PNL: a systematic review and metaanalysis of current literature.

Q1 Medicine
E. X. Keller, V. de Coninck, S. Proietti, M. Talso, E. Emiliani, A. Ploumidis, G. Mantica, B. Somani, O. Traxer, R. Scarpa, F. Esperto
{"title":"Prone versus supine PNL: a systematic review and metaanalysis of current literature.","authors":"E. X. Keller, V. de Coninck, S. Proietti, M. Talso, E. Emiliani, A. Ploumidis, G. Mantica, B. Somani, O. Traxer, R. Scarpa, F. Esperto","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03960-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nPercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be performed either in prone or supine position. This study aimed at gathering together randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety between prone and supine PNL.\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nSystematic review of literature was conducted using the Scopus, Medline and Web of Science databases. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were independently assessed by two authors. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3. Sensitivity analyses were performed to exclude studies with high risk of bias.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\nPooled data from 12 studies including 1290 patients were available for analysis. Only one study was found to have overall low risk of bias. Significantly shorter operative time was found in favor of supine PNL (mean difference 13 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 - 22.7; p < 0.01). Stone-free rate (SFR) ≥ 14 days after surgery was significantly higher in prone PNL (odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.07 - 4.34; p = 0.03). Significantly higher fever rate was found in prone PNL (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03 - 2.47; p = 0.04). Overall SFR, hospital stay length, complications rate, transfusions rate and blood loss, as well as non-lower calyx puncture rate, puncture attempts and tubeless intervention rate did not differ between prone and supine PNL (p > 0.05).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nEfficacy of PNL seems balanced between prone and supine position, with comparable overall SFR and shorter operative time in favor of supine PNL. Safety of PNL appears in favor of supine PNL, with lower fever rate. Because of study heterogeneity and possible risks of outcome bias, results from this study should be interpreted with caution. Altogether, both prone and supine PNL account for appropriate therapy options.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03960-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) can be performed either in prone or supine position. This study aimed at gathering together randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety between prone and supine PNL. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Systematic review of literature was conducted using the Scopus, Medline and Web of Science databases. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were independently assessed by two authors. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.3. Sensitivity analyses were performed to exclude studies with high risk of bias. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Pooled data from 12 studies including 1290 patients were available for analysis. Only one study was found to have overall low risk of bias. Significantly shorter operative time was found in favor of supine PNL (mean difference 13 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4 - 22.7; p < 0.01). Stone-free rate (SFR) ≥ 14 days after surgery was significantly higher in prone PNL (odds ratio (OR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.07 - 4.34; p = 0.03). Significantly higher fever rate was found in prone PNL (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03 - 2.47; p = 0.04). Overall SFR, hospital stay length, complications rate, transfusions rate and blood loss, as well as non-lower calyx puncture rate, puncture attempts and tubeless intervention rate did not differ between prone and supine PNL (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Efficacy of PNL seems balanced between prone and supine position, with comparable overall SFR and shorter operative time in favor of supine PNL. Safety of PNL appears in favor of supine PNL, with lower fever rate. Because of study heterogeneity and possible risks of outcome bias, results from this study should be interpreted with caution. Altogether, both prone and supine PNL account for appropriate therapy options.
俯卧位与仰卧位PNL:当前文献的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
经皮肾镜取石术(PNL)可以俯卧位或仰卧位进行。本研究旨在收集随机对照试验(rct),比较俯卧位和仰卧位PNL的疗效和安全性。证据获取使用Scopus、Medline和Web of Science数据库对文献进行系统综述。研究选择、数据提取和质量评估由两位作者独立评估。采用Review Manager 5.3进行meta分析。进行敏感性分析以排除高偏倚风险的研究。证据综合来自12项研究,包括1290例患者的汇总数据可用于分析。只有一项研究发现总体偏倚风险较低。仰卧位PNL手术时间明显缩短(平均差13分钟,95%可信区间(CI) 3.4 ~ 22.7;P < 0.01)。术后≥14天的无结石率(SFR)明显高于俯卧PNL(优势比(OR) 2.15, 95% CI 1.07 - 4.34;P = 0.03)。易发PNL患者的发热率明显较高(OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.03 - 2.47;P = 0.04)。俯卧位与仰卧位PNL患者的总SFR、住院时间、并发症发生率、输血率、失血量、非低位花萼穿刺率、穿刺次数、无管干预率差异无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。结论俯卧位和仰卧位对PNL的疗效基本一致,总的SFR相当,手术时间更短,有利于仰卧位PNL。PNL的安全性倾向于仰卧位PNL,发热率较低。由于研究的异质性和可能的结果偏倚风险,本研究的结果应谨慎解释。总之,俯卧位和仰卧位的PNL都是适当的治疗选择。
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
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
×
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