Ali Talyshinskii, Yerkebulan Mukhambetov, Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly, Lazaros Tzelves, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Theodoros Tokas, Giorgio Bozzini, Wissam Kamal, Bhaskar Kumar Somani
{"title":"报道盆腔系统(PCS)解剖对逆行肾内手术(RIRS)研究临床结果的影响:我们能做得更好吗?-泌尿外科泌尿科的方法回顾。","authors":"Ali Talyshinskii, Yerkebulan Mukhambetov, Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly, Lazaros Tzelves, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Theodoros Tokas, Giorgio Bozzini, Wissam Kamal, Bhaskar Kumar Somani","doi":"10.5152/tud.2025.25032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To analyze available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with other modalities for urinary stone treatment to determine the extent of comparing the pelvicalyceal system (PCS) anatomy between patients. In December 2024, a search was conducted in databases and was limited to publications that describe comparisons of experimental and control groups in the context of RIRS for stones only in the kidney (PCS). Only RCTs comparing RIRS with other modalities without publication date restriction were included due to their highest level of evidence in the hierarchy of primary research. The parameters used in the selected studies were analyzed to compare the differences between the groups, focusing on PCS anatomy. The final analysis included 27 publications from 2421 articles. The presence and/or degree of hydronephrosis were analyzed in 8 studies. Direct morphometric measurements were compared in 4 studies and were focused on the lower pole only, namely the infundibulopelvic angle, infundibular length, and infundibular width. Features such as the position of the renal pelvis in relation to the kidney parenchyma (intrarenal, extrarenal), number and orientation of calyces, as well as the existing PCS classifications were not compared or used. This review shows gaps in the literature while assessing and reporting on PCS anatomy in studies with RIRS. Unless studies mention these anatomical factors without excluding certain groups of patients, it is difficult to compare outcomes between modalities and in between studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":101337,"journal":{"name":"Urology research & practice","volume":"51 1","pages":"12-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12128335/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reporting the Impact of Pelvicalyceal System (PCS) Anatomy on Clinical Outcomes in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) Studies: Can We Do Better? - Methodological Review from the Section of EAU Endourology.\",\"authors\":\"Ali Talyshinskii, Yerkebulan Mukhambetov, Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly, Lazaros Tzelves, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Theodoros Tokas, Giorgio Bozzini, Wissam Kamal, Bhaskar Kumar Somani\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tud.2025.25032\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To analyze available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with other modalities for urinary stone treatment to determine the extent of comparing the pelvicalyceal system (PCS) anatomy between patients. In December 2024, a search was conducted in databases and was limited to publications that describe comparisons of experimental and control groups in the context of RIRS for stones only in the kidney (PCS). Only RCTs comparing RIRS with other modalities without publication date restriction were included due to their highest level of evidence in the hierarchy of primary research. The parameters used in the selected studies were analyzed to compare the differences between the groups, focusing on PCS anatomy. The final analysis included 27 publications from 2421 articles. The presence and/or degree of hydronephrosis were analyzed in 8 studies. Direct morphometric measurements were compared in 4 studies and were focused on the lower pole only, namely the infundibulopelvic angle, infundibular length, and infundibular width. Features such as the position of the renal pelvis in relation to the kidney parenchyma (intrarenal, extrarenal), number and orientation of calyces, as well as the existing PCS classifications were not compared or used. This review shows gaps in the literature while assessing and reporting on PCS anatomy in studies with RIRS. Unless studies mention these anatomical factors without excluding certain groups of patients, it is difficult to compare outcomes between modalities and in between studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"12-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12128335/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology research & practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.25032\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology research & practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2025.25032","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Reporting the Impact of Pelvicalyceal System (PCS) Anatomy on Clinical Outcomes in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery (RIRS) Studies: Can We Do Better? - Methodological Review from the Section of EAU Endourology.
To analyze available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) with other modalities for urinary stone treatment to determine the extent of comparing the pelvicalyceal system (PCS) anatomy between patients. In December 2024, a search was conducted in databases and was limited to publications that describe comparisons of experimental and control groups in the context of RIRS for stones only in the kidney (PCS). Only RCTs comparing RIRS with other modalities without publication date restriction were included due to their highest level of evidence in the hierarchy of primary research. The parameters used in the selected studies were analyzed to compare the differences between the groups, focusing on PCS anatomy. The final analysis included 27 publications from 2421 articles. The presence and/or degree of hydronephrosis were analyzed in 8 studies. Direct morphometric measurements were compared in 4 studies and were focused on the lower pole only, namely the infundibulopelvic angle, infundibular length, and infundibular width. Features such as the position of the renal pelvis in relation to the kidney parenchyma (intrarenal, extrarenal), number and orientation of calyces, as well as the existing PCS classifications were not compared or used. This review shows gaps in the literature while assessing and reporting on PCS anatomy in studies with RIRS. Unless studies mention these anatomical factors without excluding certain groups of patients, it is difficult to compare outcomes between modalities and in between studies.