激光碎石与机械碎石在吸式微型pcnl治疗肾结石的比较:一项由EAU泌尿科开展的前瞻性多中心研究。

IF 1.9 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
BJUI compass Pub Date : 2025-10-08 eCollection Date: 2025-10-01 DOI:10.1002/bco2.70075
Angelo Cormio, Vineet Gauhar, Bhaskar K Somani, Jaisukh Kalathia, Nariman Gadzhiev, Marek Zawadzki, Mahmoud Laymon, Karl Tan, Gopal Ramdas Tak, Theodoros Tokas, Madhu Sudan Agrawal, Jean de la Rosette, Kremena Petkova, Kazumi Taguchi, Dmitriy Gorelov, Alexey G Martov, Leonardo Gomes Lopes, Mehmet Ilker Gökce, Wissam Kamal, Stefania Ferretti, Devang Desai, Yadgar Abduljabbar Shwani, Khi Yung Fong, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Andreas Skolarikos, Marcos Cepeda, Thomas R W Herrmann, Daniele Castellani
{"title":"激光碎石与机械碎石在吸式微型pcnl治疗肾结石的比较:一项由EAU泌尿科开展的前瞻性多中心研究。","authors":"Angelo Cormio, Vineet Gauhar, Bhaskar K Somani, Jaisukh Kalathia, Nariman Gadzhiev, Marek Zawadzki, Mahmoud Laymon, Karl Tan, Gopal Ramdas Tak, Theodoros Tokas, Madhu Sudan Agrawal, Jean de la Rosette, Kremena Petkova, Kazumi Taguchi, Dmitriy Gorelov, Alexey G Martov, Leonardo Gomes Lopes, Mehmet Ilker Gökce, Wissam Kamal, Stefania Ferretti, Devang Desai, Yadgar Abduljabbar Shwani, Khi Yung Fong, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Andreas Skolarikos, Marcos Cepeda, Thomas R W Herrmann, Daniele Castellani","doi":"10.1002/bco2.70075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare perioperative outcomes, complications and stone-free rates (SFRs) between laser and non-laser lithotripsy in suction-assisted mini-PCNL (SM-PCNL).</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>This prospective multicentre study enrolled adults with normal kidneys undergoing SM-PCNL (14-22 Fr) across 30 international centres (March-November 2024). Patients were divided into laser (Group 1) and non-laser (Group 2) groups. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed based on age, sex, Guy's score and patient position. Primary outcomes were complications and 30-day SFR assessed by CT. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of complete stone clearance and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, 748 patients were analysed (Group 1: 448; Group 2: 300). Non-laser devices were associated with shorter lithotripsy (12 vs 18 min, p < 0.001) and operative times (37 vs 45 min, p < 0.001) and higher SFR (intraoperative: 91.3% vs 80.7%; 30-day: 87.7% vs 82.1%). However, transfusions (3.3% vs 0.2%), pelvic perforation and pleural injury (each 3.0%) were more common in Group 2. On multivariable analysis, single-step dilation (OR 3.05) and sheath sizes of 16.5-18 Fr (OR 1.98) or 20-22 Fr (OR 2.72) were associated with higher odds of stone-free status, while skin-to-stone distance >8 cm (OR 0.5) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (0.28) reduced this likelihood. Stone volume (OR 1.03), serial dilation with non-metal dilators (OR 2.64) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (OR 2.11) were factors associated with higher odds of complications. The lithotripsy technology had no direct bearing on complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both laser and non-laser lithotripsy are effective in SM-PCNL. Non-laser devices improve efficiency and lasers were preferentially used with 14-18 fr access tracts.</p>","PeriodicalId":72420,"journal":{"name":"BJUI compass","volume":"6 10","pages":"e70075"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12504910/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing laser vs mechanical lithotripsy in suction mini-PCNL for kidney stone disease: A prospective multicentre study by the endourology section of EAU.\",\"authors\":\"Angelo Cormio, Vineet Gauhar, Bhaskar K Somani, Jaisukh Kalathia, Nariman Gadzhiev, Marek Zawadzki, Mahmoud Laymon, Karl Tan, Gopal Ramdas Tak, Theodoros Tokas, Madhu Sudan Agrawal, Jean de la Rosette, Kremena Petkova, Kazumi Taguchi, Dmitriy Gorelov, Alexey G Martov, Leonardo Gomes Lopes, Mehmet Ilker Gökce, Wissam Kamal, Stefania Ferretti, Devang Desai, Yadgar Abduljabbar Shwani, Khi Yung Fong, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Andreas Skolarikos, Marcos Cepeda, Thomas R W Herrmann, Daniele Castellani\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bco2.70075\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare perioperative outcomes, complications and stone-free rates (SFRs) between laser and non-laser lithotripsy in suction-assisted mini-PCNL (SM-PCNL).</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>This prospective multicentre study enrolled adults with normal kidneys undergoing SM-PCNL (14-22 Fr) across 30 international centres (March-November 2024). Patients were divided into laser (Group 1) and non-laser (Group 2) groups. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed based on age, sex, Guy's score and patient position. Primary outcomes were complications and 30-day SFR assessed by CT. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of complete stone clearance and complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After matching, 748 patients were analysed (Group 1: 448; Group 2: 300). Non-laser devices were associated with shorter lithotripsy (12 vs 18 min, p < 0.001) and operative times (37 vs 45 min, p < 0.001) and higher SFR (intraoperative: 91.3% vs 80.7%; 30-day: 87.7% vs 82.1%). However, transfusions (3.3% vs 0.2%), pelvic perforation and pleural injury (each 3.0%) were more common in Group 2. On multivariable analysis, single-step dilation (OR 3.05) and sheath sizes of 16.5-18 Fr (OR 1.98) or 20-22 Fr (OR 2.72) were associated with higher odds of stone-free status, while skin-to-stone distance >8 cm (OR 0.5) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (0.28) reduced this likelihood. Stone volume (OR 1.03), serial dilation with non-metal dilators (OR 2.64) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (OR 2.11) were factors associated with higher odds of complications. The lithotripsy technology had no direct bearing on complications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both laser and non-laser lithotripsy are effective in SM-PCNL. Non-laser devices improve efficiency and lasers were preferentially used with 14-18 fr access tracts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BJUI compass\",\"volume\":\"6 10\",\"pages\":\"e70075\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12504910/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BJUI compass\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70075\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJUI compass","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/bco2.70075","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较吸吸辅助迷你pcnl (SM-PCNL)激光与非激光碎石术的围手术期疗效、并发症及无结石率(SFRs)。受试者和方法:这项前瞻性多中心研究招募了30个国际中心(2024年3月至11月)接受SM-PCNL (14-22 Fr)的正常肾脏成人。患者分为激光组(1组)和非激光组(2组)。根据年龄、性别、Guy's评分和患者体位进行倾向评分匹配(2:1)。主要结局是并发症和CT评估的30天SFR。多变量logistic回归确定了结石完全清除和并发症的预测因素。结果:配对后共分析748例患者(1组448例;2组300例)。非激光设备与更短的碎石时间相关(12 vs 18分钟,p 8厘米(OR 0.5),联合透视/超声检查(0.28)降低了这种可能性。结石体积(OR 1.03)、非金属扩张器连续扩张(OR 2.64)和透视/超声联合进入(OR 2.11)是并发症发生率较高的因素。碎石技术对并发症无直接影响。结论:激光和非激光碎石治疗SM-PCNL均有效。非激光器件提高了效率,优先使用14-18的激光器作为接入束。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparing laser vs mechanical lithotripsy in suction mini-PCNL for kidney stone disease: A prospective multicentre study by the endourology section of EAU.

Objectives: To compare perioperative outcomes, complications and stone-free rates (SFRs) between laser and non-laser lithotripsy in suction-assisted mini-PCNL (SM-PCNL).

Subjects and methods: This prospective multicentre study enrolled adults with normal kidneys undergoing SM-PCNL (14-22 Fr) across 30 international centres (March-November 2024). Patients were divided into laser (Group 1) and non-laser (Group 2) groups. Propensity score matching (2:1) was performed based on age, sex, Guy's score and patient position. Primary outcomes were complications and 30-day SFR assessed by CT. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of complete stone clearance and complications.

Results: After matching, 748 patients were analysed (Group 1: 448; Group 2: 300). Non-laser devices were associated with shorter lithotripsy (12 vs 18 min, p < 0.001) and operative times (37 vs 45 min, p < 0.001) and higher SFR (intraoperative: 91.3% vs 80.7%; 30-day: 87.7% vs 82.1%). However, transfusions (3.3% vs 0.2%), pelvic perforation and pleural injury (each 3.0%) were more common in Group 2. On multivariable analysis, single-step dilation (OR 3.05) and sheath sizes of 16.5-18 Fr (OR 1.98) or 20-22 Fr (OR 2.72) were associated with higher odds of stone-free status, while skin-to-stone distance >8 cm (OR 0.5) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (0.28) reduced this likelihood. Stone volume (OR 1.03), serial dilation with non-metal dilators (OR 2.64) and combined fluoroscopy/ultrasound access (OR 2.11) were factors associated with higher odds of complications. The lithotripsy technology had no direct bearing on complications.

Conclusions: Both laser and non-laser lithotripsy are effective in SM-PCNL. Non-laser devices improve efficiency and lasers were preferentially used with 14-18 fr access tracts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信