Fluoroless versus conventional ureteroscopy for urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Q1 Medicine

Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica Pub Date : 2020-10-05 DOI:10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04042-4

L. Peng, Wei Wang, Xiao-shuai Gao, Xing-peng Di, D. Luo

{"title":"Fluoroless versus conventional ureteroscopy for urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"L. Peng, Wei Wang, Xiao-shuai Gao, Xing-peng Di, D. Luo","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04042-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nTo comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (URS) vs conventional URS for urinary stones.\n\n\nEVIDENCE ACQUISITION\nAn exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were performed to find eligible researches before May 2020. Result parameters including stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, repeat procedure rate and complication rate were assessed using RevMan 5.3.\n\n\nEVIDENCE SYNTHESIS\n7 studies (5 retrospective studies and 2 prospective randomized controlled trials) involving 1404 individuals were included. Pooled results demonstrated that the operation time in fluoroless URS group was slightly longer than conventional URS group (weighted mean difference [MD]=2.79, p=0.0001), but no statistically significant differences regarding SFR (odds ratio [OR]=1.18, p=0.57), repeat procedure rate (OR=1.32, p=0.52), and total complication rate (OR=0.75, p=0.16) were observed between two techniques.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nFluoroless URS is equally safe and effective to conventional URS procedure with zero radiation exposure. However, it needs to be cautiously conducted in selected patients and fluoroscopy equipment should always be available intraoperatively.","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.04042-4","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: 2

Abstract

INTRODUCTION To comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (URS) vs conventional URS for urinary stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION An exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were performed to find eligible researches before May 2020. Result parameters including stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, repeat procedure rate and complication rate were assessed using RevMan 5.3. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS 7 studies (5 retrospective studies and 2 prospective randomized controlled trials) involving 1404 individuals were included. Pooled results demonstrated that the operation time in fluoroless URS group was slightly longer than conventional URS group (weighted mean difference [MD]=2.79, p=0.0001), but no statistically significant differences regarding SFR (odds ratio [OR]=1.18, p=0.57), repeat procedure rate (OR=1.32, p=0.52), and total complication rate (OR=0.75, p=0.16) were observed between two techniques. CONCLUSIONS Fluoroless URS is equally safe and effective to conventional URS procedure with zero radiation exposure. However, it needs to be cautiously conducted in selected patients and fluoroscopy equipment should always be available intraoperatively.

查看原文本刊更多论文

无氟输尿管镜与常规输尿管镜治疗尿路结石:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

目的:综合评价无氟输尿管镜(URS)与常规输尿管镜治疗尿路结石的有效性和安全性。证据获取我们对PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science和Cochrane Library进行了详尽的检索，以在2020年5月之前找到符合条件的研究。采用RevMan 5.3软件对结石无结石率(SFR)、手术时间、重复手术率及并发症发生率进行评估。证据综合:纳入7项研究(5项回顾性研究和2项前瞻性随机对照试验)，涉及1404人。合并结果显示，无荧光URS组的手术时间略长于常规URS组(加权平均差[MD]=2.79, p=0.0001)，但两种技术在SFR(优势比[OR]=1.18, p=0.57)、重复手术率(OR=1.32, p=0.52)和总并发症率(OR=0.75, p=0.16)方面无统计学差异。结论无氟尿路与常规尿路同样安全有效，且无辐射暴露。然而，在选定的患者中需要谨慎进行，术中应始终提供透视设备。

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 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-

CiteScore

5.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.