I Gede Yogi Prema Ananda, Kadek Budi Santosa, I Wayan Yudiana, Pande Made Wisnu Tirtayasa, Ida Bagus Putra Pramana, Nyoman Gede Prayudi, Gede Wirya Kusuma Duarsa
{"title":"经皮肾镜取石术中Barts无侧腹改良仰卧位与俯卧位:系统回顾和meta分析。","authors":"I Gede Yogi Prema Ananda, Kadek Budi Santosa, I Wayan Yudiana, Pande Made Wisnu Tirtayasa, Ida Bagus Putra Pramana, Nyoman Gede Prayudi, Gede Wirya Kusuma Duarsa","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12944","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed in various positions, including prone position and several modifications of supine position. The Barts flank-free modified supine (FFMS) position is a newly enhanced version of the supine positions. This study aims to compare the outcomes of Barts FFMS and prone position in PCNL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study followed PRISMA 2020 guideline and was registered to PROSPERO CRD42024530426. Comprehensive search in PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Scopus was conducted until May 2024. Stone-free rates, complications, surgery duration, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of stay were collected. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4 studies were included in this review. There was no significant difference in stone-free rates between Barts FFMS and prone positions (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95, p = 0.70). There were no significant difference in incidence of fever (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.18, p = 0.84), need for blood transfusion (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.11-1.88, p = 0.28), and urine leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.05, p = 0.06). The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position (MD = -15.48, 95% CI [(-26.42)-(-4.55)], p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in patients requiring nephrostomy (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-3.75, p = 0.28). There were no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD = 0.27, 95% CI [(-6.85)-7.40], p = 0.94) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.20, 95% CI [(-0.74)-0.33], p = 0.46).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rates, complications, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of hospital stay. This indicates that neither Barts FFMS nor prone position is superior, and the choice should be based on the surgeon's preference and the patient's clinical status.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":"96 4","pages":"12944"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barts flank-free modified supine position vs prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Systematic review and meta analysis.\",\"authors\":\"I Gede Yogi Prema Ananda, Kadek Budi Santosa, I Wayan Yudiana, Pande Made Wisnu Tirtayasa, Ida Bagus Putra Pramana, Nyoman Gede Prayudi, Gede Wirya Kusuma Duarsa\",\"doi\":\"10.4081/aiua.2024.12944\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed in various positions, including prone position and several modifications of supine position. The Barts flank-free modified supine (FFMS) position is a newly enhanced version of the supine positions. This study aims to compare the outcomes of Barts FFMS and prone position in PCNL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study followed PRISMA 2020 guideline and was registered to PROSPERO CRD42024530426. Comprehensive search in PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Scopus was conducted until May 2024. Stone-free rates, complications, surgery duration, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of stay were collected. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4 studies were included in this review. There was no significant difference in stone-free rates between Barts FFMS and prone positions (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95, p = 0.70). There were no significant difference in incidence of fever (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.18, p = 0.84), need for blood transfusion (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.11-1.88, p = 0.28), and urine leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.05, p = 0.06). The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position (MD = -15.48, 95% CI [(-26.42)-(-4.55)], p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in patients requiring nephrostomy (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-3.75, p = 0.28). There were no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD = 0.27, 95% CI [(-6.85)-7.40], p = 0.94) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.20, 95% CI [(-0.74)-0.33], p = 0.46).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rates, complications, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of hospital stay. This indicates that neither Barts FFMS nor prone position is superior, and the choice should be based on the surgeon's preference and the patient's clinical status.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46900,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia\",\"volume\":\"96 4\",\"pages\":\"12944\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12944\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12944","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
导读:经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)采用多种体位,包括俯卧位和几种仰卧位的修改。Barts无侧腹改良仰卧位(FFMS)是仰卧位的新增强版本。本研究旨在比较Barts FFMS和俯卧位在PCNL中的结果。方法:本研究遵循PRISMA 2020指南,注册号为PROSPERO CRD42024530426。在PubMed、Sciencedirect和Scopus中进行了全面的检索,直到2024年5月。收集无结石率、并发症、手术时间、透视时间、肾造口术的使用和住院时间。数据分析采用RevMan 5.4软件。结果:本综述共纳入4项研究。Barts FFMS和俯卧位的结石清除率无显著差异(OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95, p = 0.70)。两组患者发热发生率(OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.18, p = 0.84)、输血需要(OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.11-1.88, p = 0.28)和尿漏发生率(OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.05, p = 0.06)无显著差异。Barts FFMS体位手术时间明显短于俯卧位(MD = -15.48, 95% CI [(-26.42)-(-4.55)], p = 0.006)。需要肾造瘘的患者无显著差异(OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-3.75, p = 0.28)。两组患者的x线透视时间(MD = 0.27, 95% CI [(-6.85)-7.40], p = 0.94)和住院时间(MD = -0.20, 95% CI [(-0.74)-0.33], p = 0.46)无统计学差异。结论:Barts FFMS体位手术时间明显短于俯卧位。在无结石率、并发症、透视时间、肾造口术的使用和住院时间方面没有显著差异。这说明Barts FFMS和俯卧位都没有优势,应该根据术者的喜好和患者的临床情况来选择。
Barts flank-free modified supine position vs prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Systematic review and meta analysis.
Introduction: Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL) has been performed in various positions, including prone position and several modifications of supine position. The Barts flank-free modified supine (FFMS) position is a newly enhanced version of the supine positions. This study aims to compare the outcomes of Barts FFMS and prone position in PCNL.
Methods: This study followed PRISMA 2020 guideline and was registered to PROSPERO CRD42024530426. Comprehensive search in PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Scopus was conducted until May 2024. Stone-free rates, complications, surgery duration, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of stay were collected. Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4.
Results: A total of 4 studies were included in this review. There was no significant difference in stone-free rates between Barts FFMS and prone positions (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.64-1.95, p = 0.70). There were no significant difference in incidence of fever (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.38-2.18, p = 0.84), need for blood transfusion (OR = 0.46, 95% CI 0.11-1.88, p = 0.28), and urine leakage (OR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.16-1.05, p = 0.06). The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position (MD = -15.48, 95% CI [(-26.42)-(-4.55)], p = 0.006). There was no significant difference in patients requiring nephrostomy (OR = 0.19, 95% CI 0.01-3.75, p = 0.28). There were no significant difference in fluoroscopy duration (MD = 0.27, 95% CI [(-6.85)-7.40], p = 0.94) and the length of hospital stay (MD = -0.20, 95% CI [(-0.74)-0.33], p = 0.46).
Conclusions: The surgery duration was significantly shorter in Barts FFMS position than in prone position. There were no significant differences regarding stone-free rates, complications, fluoroscopy duration, use of nephrostomy, and length of hospital stay. This indicates that neither Barts FFMS nor prone position is superior, and the choice should be based on the surgeon's preference and the patient's clinical status.