Title A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the surgical management of renal stones
Authors Jiao, Binbin
Luo, Zhenkai
Huang, Tao
Zhang, Guan
Yu, Jiang
Affiliation China Japan Friendship Hosp, Dept Urol, 2 Yinghuadong Rd, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
Peking Union Med Coll & Chinese Acad Med Sci, Grad Sch, Beijing 100730, Peoples R China
Peking Univ, Coll Med, China Japan Friendship Sch Clin Med, Beijing 100029, Peoples R China
Shandong First Med Univ, Dept Urol, Shandong Prov Hosp, 325 5 Weft Seven Rd, Jinan 250021, Shandong, Peoples R China
Keywords RETROGRADE INTRARENAL SURGERY
CLINICAL-RESEARCH OFFICE
KIDNEY-STONES
STAGHORN CALCULI
TRACT
COMPLICATIONS
CHILDREN
MINIPERC
PCNL
LITHOCLAST
Issue Date Mar-2021
Publisher EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE
Abstract The present study aimed to assess current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the management of renal stones. A systematic search of electronic databases, which included PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to May 2019 was performed. Using Review Manager statistical software (version 5.3), primary outcomes, including stone-free rates (SFRs), were evaluated. Meanwhile, analysis was also performed to compare secondary outcomes, such as peri- and postoperative complications and operative data. Fourteen studies involving 1,611 patients with renal stones were analyzed based on the inclusion criteria. On the basis of the present analysis, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) was proven to have non-inferior clinical efficacy with respect to the SFR compared with PCNL [odds ratio (OR)=1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.44; P=0.48]. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that MPCNL had a significantly lower hemoglobin decrease [mean difference (MD)=-0.68; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.31; P=0.0003] and fewer blood transfusions (OR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71; P=0.003) compared with PCNL. Moreover, the MPCNL group had a shorter inpatient stay (MD=-0.81; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.08; P=0.03) compared with the PCNL group. However, the overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a statistically significant difference in the adverse event profile for MPCNL compared with PCNL. The present meta-analysis indicates that MPCNL is an effective method for treating renal stones. Compared with PCNL, MPCNL not only has similarly high SFRs but is also associated with less blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, more favorable recovery time and shorter inpatient stays. However, the findings of the present study should be further confirmed by well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger patient series.
URI http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11897/617480
ISSN 1792-0981
DOI 10.3892/etm.2021.9645
Indexed SCI(E)
Appears in Collections: 中日友好医院

Files in This Work
There are no files associated with this item.

Web of Science®


0

Checked on Last Week

Scopus®



Checked on Current Time

百度学术™


0

Checked on Current Time

Google Scholar™





License: See PKU IR operational policies.