>2厘米肾结石的逆行肾内手术与经皮肾镜取石术比较。系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Q1 Medicine
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica Pub Date : 2020-08-01 Epub Date: 2020-02-19 DOI:10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2
Biagio Barone, Felice Crocetto, Raffaele Vitale, Dante Di Domenico, Vincenzo Caputo, Francesco Romano, Luigi De Luca, Maida Bada, Ciro Imbimbo, Domenico Prezioso
{"title":">2厘米肾结石的逆行肾内手术与经皮肾镜取石术比较。系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Biagio Barone,&nbsp;Felice Crocetto,&nbsp;Raffaele Vitale,&nbsp;Dante Di Domenico,&nbsp;Vincenzo Caputo,&nbsp;Francesco Romano,&nbsp;Luigi De Luca,&nbsp;Maida Bada,&nbsp;Ciro Imbimbo,&nbsp;Domenico Prezioso","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The recent advances in technology and miniaturization of endoscopic devices have permitted the use of retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) to treat large and complicated kidney stones as first line therapy in alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Systematically review the efficacy and safety of RIRS for large renal stones over 2 cm versus the current gold standard, the percutaneous nephrolithotomy.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A large search was effected in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid and Scopus regarding the treatment of renal stones over 2 cm with RIR S versus PCNL. Articles not in English and not regarding adult population were excluded. The retrieval time included a time span from 2000 to 2019. All clinical trials were further evaluated about quality and references. The eligible studies were included and analysed with RevMan 5.2 Software.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Two randomized and nine non-randomized studies were included for a total of 1618 patients involved. Our meta-analysis showed no difference in SFR (RR =0.92, 95% CI : 0.86-0.99, P=0.03) and in mean operation time (WMD=6.34 min, 95% CI : -4.98 to 17.65, P=0.27) while shorter hospital stay was reported for RIR S (WMD=-2.15 days, 95% CI: -3.04 to -1.25, P≤0.00001). We reported moreover lower Hb drop (WMD=-0.83 g/dL, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.45, P≤0.00001) and complications rate in favor of RIRS (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.71-1.09, P=0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RIRS is challenging PCNL for the treatment of large renal stones over 2cm, becoming a safe and effective alternative with a comparable stone free rate, lower complication rate and lower hospitalization time. It is, however, of the uttermost importance to share the treatment decision with the patient due to the possibility of requiring multiple RIR S session to completely clear larger stone burdens.</p>","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":"72 4","pages":"441-450"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Biagio Barone,&nbsp;Felice Crocetto,&nbsp;Raffaele Vitale,&nbsp;Dante Di Domenico,&nbsp;Vincenzo Caputo,&nbsp;Francesco Romano,&nbsp;Luigi De Luca,&nbsp;Maida Bada,&nbsp;Ciro Imbimbo,&nbsp;Domenico Prezioso\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The recent advances in technology and miniaturization of endoscopic devices have permitted the use of retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) to treat large and complicated kidney stones as first line therapy in alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Systematically review the efficacy and safety of RIRS for large renal stones over 2 cm versus the current gold standard, the percutaneous nephrolithotomy.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A large search was effected in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid and Scopus regarding the treatment of renal stones over 2 cm with RIR S versus PCNL. Articles not in English and not regarding adult population were excluded. The retrieval time included a time span from 2000 to 2019. All clinical trials were further evaluated about quality and references. The eligible studies were included and analysed with RevMan 5.2 Software.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Two randomized and nine non-randomized studies were included for a total of 1618 patients involved. Our meta-analysis showed no difference in SFR (RR =0.92, 95% CI : 0.86-0.99, P=0.03) and in mean operation time (WMD=6.34 min, 95% CI : -4.98 to 17.65, P=0.27) while shorter hospital stay was reported for RIR S (WMD=-2.15 days, 95% CI: -3.04 to -1.25, P≤0.00001). We reported moreover lower Hb drop (WMD=-0.83 g/dL, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.45, P≤0.00001) and complications rate in favor of RIRS (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.71-1.09, P=0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RIRS is challenging PCNL for the treatment of large renal stones over 2cm, becoming a safe and effective alternative with a comparable stone free rate, lower complication rate and lower hospitalization time. It is, however, of the uttermost importance to share the treatment decision with the patient due to the possibility of requiring multiple RIR S session to completely clear larger stone burdens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49015,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"volume\":\"72 4\",\"pages\":\"441-450\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/2/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

导读:最近技术的进步和内窥镜设备的小型化使得逆行肾内手术(RIRS)作为替代经皮肾镜取石术(PCNL)的一线治疗方法来治疗大而复杂的肾结石成为可能。系统回顾RIRS对大于2厘米的大肾结石的疗效和安全性与目前的金标准,经皮肾镜取石术。证据获取:在PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid和Scopus中进行了关于RIR S与PCNL治疗2厘米以上肾结石的大量搜索。非英文且不涉及成人人群的文章被排除在外。检索时间包括2000年至2019年的时间跨度。对所有临床试验的质量和参考文献进行进一步评价。纳入符合条件的研究并使用RevMan 5.2软件进行分析。证据综合:两项随机研究和九项非随机研究共纳入1618例患者。我们的荟萃分析显示,SFR (RR =0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.99, P=0.03)和平均手术时间(WMD=6.34 min, 95% CI: -4.98至17.65,P=0.27)无差异,而RIR S的住院时间较短(WMD=-2.15天,95% CI: -3.04至-1.25,P≤0.00001)。我们还报道了较低的Hb下降(WMD=-0.83 g/dL, 95% CI: -1.20 ~ -0.45, P≤0.00001)和并发症发生率(RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.71 ~ 1.09, P=0.23)。结论:RIRS是一种挑战PCNL治疗大于2cm的大肾结石的方法,是一种安全有效的替代方法,结石游离率相当,并发症发生率低,住院时间短。然而,与患者分享治疗决策是至关重要的,因为可能需要多次RIR S疗程才能完全清除较大的结石负担。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The recent advances in technology and miniaturization of endoscopic devices have permitted the use of retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS) to treat large and complicated kidney stones as first line therapy in alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Systematically review the efficacy and safety of RIRS for large renal stones over 2 cm versus the current gold standard, the percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Evidence acquisition: A large search was effected in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid and Scopus regarding the treatment of renal stones over 2 cm with RIR S versus PCNL. Articles not in English and not regarding adult population were excluded. The retrieval time included a time span from 2000 to 2019. All clinical trials were further evaluated about quality and references. The eligible studies were included and analysed with RevMan 5.2 Software.

Evidence synthesis: Two randomized and nine non-randomized studies were included for a total of 1618 patients involved. Our meta-analysis showed no difference in SFR (RR =0.92, 95% CI : 0.86-0.99, P=0.03) and in mean operation time (WMD=6.34 min, 95% CI : -4.98 to 17.65, P=0.27) while shorter hospital stay was reported for RIR S (WMD=-2.15 days, 95% CI: -3.04 to -1.25, P≤0.00001). We reported moreover lower Hb drop (WMD=-0.83 g/dL, 95% CI: -1.20 to -0.45, P≤0.00001) and complications rate in favor of RIRS (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.71-1.09, P=0.23).

Conclusions: RIRS is challenging PCNL for the treatment of large renal stones over 2cm, becoming a safe and effective alternative with a comparable stone free rate, lower complication rate and lower hospitalization time. It is, however, of the uttermost importance to share the treatment decision with the patient due to the possibility of requiring multiple RIR S session to completely clear larger stone burdens.

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
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