Comparison of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Micro-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Kidney Stones: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Zhenhua Gu ◽  
Yucheng Yang ◽  
Rui Ding ◽  
Meili Wang ◽  
Jianming Pu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Kidney Stones ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Significant Difference

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Advances in micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for kidney stones have made it an alternative approach to the retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) approach. Nevertheless, the superiority of micro-PCNL over RIRS is still under debate. The results are controversial. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the clinical results in patients presenting with kidney stones treated with micro-PCNL or RIRS. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> A literature search was done for electronic databases to identify researches that compared micro-PCNL and RIRS till December 2019. The clinical outcome included complications, stone-free rates (SFRs), hemoglobin reduction, length of hospital stay, and operative time. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Five articles were included in our study. The pooled results revealed no statistical difference in the rate of complications (OR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.57–1.74, <i>p</i> = 0.99), length of hospital stay (MD = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.82 to 0.24, <i>p</i> = 0.28), and operative time (MD = −6.63, 95% CI = −27.34 to 14.08, <i>p</i> = 0.53) between the 2 groups. However, significant difference was present in hemoglobin reduction (MD = −0.43, 95% CI = −0.55 to 0.30, <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and the SFRs (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.36–0.98, <i>p</i> = 0.04) when comparing RIRS with micro-PCNL. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Compared with micro-PCNL to treat kidney stones, RIRS is associated with better stone clearance and bearing higher hemoglobin loss. As the advantages of both technologies have been shown in some fields, the continuation of well-designed clinical trials may be necessary.

The Self-Retaining Barbed Suture for Parenchymal Repair in Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 744-752
Author(s):  
Hailun Zhan ◽  
Chunping Huang ◽  
Tengcheng Li ◽  
Fei Yang ◽  
Jiarong Cai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Partial Nephrectomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
The Self ◽  
Barbed Suture ◽  
Estimated Blood Loss

Objectives. The warm ischemia time (WIT) is key to successful laparoscopic partial nephrectomy (LPN). The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing the self-retaining barbed suture (SRBS) with a non-SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was performed up to March 2018. Inclusion criteria for this study were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational comparative studies assessing the SRBS and non-SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN. Outcomes of interest included WIT, complications, overall operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, and change of renal function. Results. One RCT and 7 retrospective studies were identified, which included a total of 461 cases. Compared with the non-SRBS, use of the SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN was associated with shorter WIT ( P < .00001), shorter overall operative time ( P < .00001), lower estimated blood loss ( P = .02), and better renal function preservation ( P = .001). There was no significant difference between the SRBS and non-SRBS with regard to complications ( P = .08) and length of hospital stay ( P = .25). Conclusions. The SRBS for parenchymal repair during LPN can significantly shorten the WIT and overall operative time, decrease blood loss, and preserve renal function.

scholarly journals Delayed appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated acute appendicitis

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 2766
Author(s):  
Anandaravi B. N. ◽  
Krishna S. R. ◽  
Pradeep Kumar H. D. ◽  
Mayank Garg
Keyword(s):  
Acute Appendicitis ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Readmission Rate ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Perforated Appendicitis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Perforation Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Emergency Group ◽  
Delayed Group

Background: Appendicitis remains one of the most common diseases encountered by the surgeon in practice. Appendicectomy is the most common urgent or emergency general surgical operation performed. Emergency appendicectomy is believed to be the standard treatment protocol for patients with acute appendicitis. This study was conducted to verify whether acute non-perforated appendicitis requires immediate surgery or can be delayed to be taken up on elective basis.Methods: This is a retrospective study of all the cases undergoing appendicectomy for acute appendicitis over the period of January 2016 to December 2016 in K. R. hospital, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. The cases were divided into two comparison groups: emergency group (operated within 12 hours of admission) and delayed group (operated between 12-72 hours). Parameters like age, sex, duration of symptoms, total leucocytes count, temperature, haemoglobin, radiological investigations, operative procedure, operative time, length of hospital stay, length of post-operative stay were collected and the end points for comparison were: Operative time, perforation rate, post-operative complication, length of hospital stay, readmission rate. Cases of perforated appendicitis in preoperative diagnosis, interval appendicectomy and appendicectomy done in association with other abdominal conditions were excluded from the study.Results: During this one-year period 283 patients have undergone appendicectomy. Out of this 189 (66.8%) patients have undergone surgery within 12 hours of admission and 94 (33.2%) have undergone surgery between 12 to 72 hours of admission. There was no significant difference between the two groups in operative time, per operative perforation rate, post-operative complication rate, readmission rate. Length of the hospital stay was greater in delayed group as compared to emergency group. But there was no significant difference between the post-operative length of hospital stay.Conclusions: Acute appendicitis can be treated surgically in a delayed elective basis without increasing morbidity.  

SP3.1.13 Does Single-port laparoscopic appendicectomy provide better outcomes compared to conventional (three-ports) laparoscopic appendicectomy?

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed ◽  
Shafquat Zaman ◽  
Stephen Stonelake ◽  
Shahin Hajibandeh
Keyword(s):  
Subgroup Analysis ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Single Port ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Laparoscopic Appendicectomy ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Additional Port

Abstract Aims To evaluate comparative outcomes of single port laparoscopic appendicectomy (SPLA) and conventional three-port laparoscopic appendicectomy (CLA) in the management of acute appendicitis. Methods A comprehensive systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with subsequent meta-analysis of outcomes were conducted following PRISMA standards. Post-operative pain, cosmesis, need for an additional port(s), operative time, Post-operative complications, length of hospital stay(LOS), readmission, and reoperation were the evaluated outcome parameters. Results Sixteen RCTs reporting a total number of 2017 patients who underwent SPLA(n = 1009) or CLA(n = 1008) were included. SPLA showed higher cosmetic score (Mean Difference (MD) 1.11,P= 0.03) but significantly longer operative time (MD 7.08, P = 0.00001) compared to CLA. However, there was no significant difference between SPLA and CLA group in the postoperative pain score at 12 hours (MD -0.13,P=0.69), need for additional port(s) (Risk Ratio (RR)0.03, P = 0.07), postoperative ileus (RR 0.74,P=0.51), SSI ( RR 1.38, P = 0.28), Post-operative intra-abdominal collection (RR 0.00,P=0.62), LOS ( MD -2.41, P = 0.16), readmission to the hospital ( RR 0.45,P=0.22), and return to theatre (RR -0.00, P = 0.49). Subgroup analysis showed that operative time was comparable in adults only subgroup (P = 0.18) while it was significantly loner in paediatrics only subgroup(P = 0.00001). Moreover, LOS was shorter in adults only subgroup (P = 0.003) and no difference observed in paediatrics only subgroup (P = 0.93). Conclusion SPLA is associated with a slightly longer operative time; however, its efficacy and safety are comparable to CLA. Subgroup analysis showed that SPLA has better outcome in adults than paediatrics. Additionally, SPLA offers better post-operative cosmesis.

scholarly journals Which is the best treatment of pediatric upper urinary tract stones among extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review

BMC Urology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing He ◽  
Kaiwen Xiao ◽  
Yuntian Chen ◽  
Banghua Liao ◽  
Hong Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Upper Urinary Tract ◽  
The Other ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
Lower Efficiency ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Urinary Tract Stones ◽  
Retreatment Rate

Abstract Background Although the indications of minimally invasive treatments for pediatric urolithiasis are similar to those in adults, it is still crucial to make the right treatment decision due to the special considerations of children. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of pediatric upper urinary tract stones. Methods EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their first available date to March 2018. The studies that meet the inclusive criteria were included. The efficacy and safety of the treatments were assessed by means of meta-analysis of the stone free rate (SFR), complication rate, effectiveness quotient (EQ) and secondary outcome indicators. Results A total of 13 comparative studies were identified for data analysis. PCNL presented a significantly higher SFR compared with SWL. Similarly, the single-session SFR of RIRS was significantly higher than SWL. However, no significant difference was found between RIRS and SWL in the overall SFR. There was no significant difference between PCNL and RIRS in the SFR. Furthermore, no significant differences in complication rates were found among the three therapies. Compared with the other two treatments, PCNL had a longer operative time, fluoroscopy time and hospital stay. SWL had a shorter hospital stay, higher retreatment rate and auxiliary rate in comparison with the other two treatments. The present data also showed that PCNL presented a higher EQ than the other two treatments, and RIRS had a lower efficiency than SWL and PCNL. In the subgroup analysis of pediatric patients with stone ≤20 mm, the comparative results were similar to those described above, except for the higher complication rate of PCNL than SWL. Conclusions Although SWL as an outpatient procedure provides shorter hospital stay and reduces operative time, it has a lower SFR and higher retreatment rate than the other two treatments. PCNL exhibits a higher SFR and EQ than SWL; nevertheless, it has a longer operative time and fluoroscopy time than the other two procedures. RIRS offers a similar SFR as PCNL but a lower efficiency than PCNL.

scholarly journals Intercostal nerve cryoablation versus thoracic epidural for postoperative analgesia following pectus excavatum repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-498
Author(s):  
Jean H T Daemen ◽  
Erik R de Loos ◽  
Yvonne L J Vissers ◽  
Maikel J A M Bakens ◽  
Jos G Maessen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Epidural Analgesia ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Pectus Excavatum ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Intercostal Nerve ◽  
Nuss Procedure ◽  
Thoracic Epidural

Abstract OBJECTIVES Minimally invasive pectus excavatum repair via the Nuss procedure is associated with significant postoperative pain that is considered as the dominant factor affecting the duration of hospitalization. Postoperative pain after the Nuss procedures is commonly controlled by thoracic epidural analgesia. Recently, intercostal nerve cryoablation has been proposed as an alternative method with long-acting pain control and shortened hospitalization. The subsequent objective was to systematically review the outcomes of intercostal nerve cryoablation in comparison to thoracic epidural after the Nuss procedure. METHODS Six scientific databases were searched. Data concerning the length of hospital stay, operative time and postoperative opioid usage were extracted. If possible, data were submitted to meta-analysis using the mean of differences, random-effects model with inverse variance method and I2 test for heterogeneity. RESULTS Four observational and 1 randomized study were included, enrolling a total of 196 patients. Meta-analyses demonstrated a significantly shortened length of hospital stay [mean difference −2.91 days; 95% confidence interval (CI) −3.68 to −2.15; P &lt; 0.001] and increased operative time (mean difference 40.91 min; 95% CI 14.42–67.40; P &lt; 0.001) for cryoablation. Both analyses demonstrated significant heterogeneity (both I2 = 91%; P &lt; 0.001). Qualitative analysis demonstrated the amount of postoperative opioid usage to be significantly lower for cryoablation in 3 out of 4 reporting studies. CONCLUSIONS Intercostal nerve cryoablation during the Nuss procedure may be an attractive alternative to thoracic epidural analgesia, resulting in shortened hospitalization. However, given the low quality and heterogeneity of studies, more randomized controlled trials are needed.

scholarly journals 1369 Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Emergency General Surgery During the Covid-19 Pandemic Versus Control Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_6) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Hebding ◽  
L Wingfield ◽  
Y Negreskul ◽  
J Gilmour
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mortality Rate ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Complication Rate ◽  
Emergency Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Emergency General Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Introduction Throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, the surgical community has attempted to address whether it is safe to continue surgery. The aim of this research was to review evidence on emergency general patients operated on during the pandemic compared to patients undergoing emergency surgery during non-pandemic times to determine if operating during the Covid-19 pandemic led to an increased risk of death, length of hospital stay and complications. Method A systematic review of the literature was performed. PubMed, Cochrane, MEDLINE, Science Direct, Springer Link, Elsevier, and reference lists were analysed for inclusion on 2 January 2021. Results Nine studies and 5,022 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the control group vs pandemic group in mean age (52.3yrs vs 51.9yrs, p = 0.67) or gender (44.4% females vs 49.3%, p = 0.173). Pooled analysis of control vs pandemic showed a mortality rate of 1.26% vs 3.06% (CI:-6.58–6.58, p = 1.00). Mean length of hospital stay was 7.9 vs 7.7 days in control v. pandemic (CI: -2.93-3.33, p = 0.87) and post-operative complication rate of 20.2% vs 25.7% (CI -6.4-25.0, p = 0.20), (control vs pandemic). The pandemic group had significantly more operative management (47.0% vs 40.0%, p = 0.03) with no significant difference in laparoscopic vs open technique (46.0% vs 43.6%, p = 0.20). Conclusions This meta-analysis shows there is no statistically significant difference in mortality rate, length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate between the pandemic and control cohorts in emergency general surgery patients. This data suggests that general emergency surgery should continue in spite of the pandemic with appropriate precautions in place.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with large renal pelvic stones: a meta-analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (6) ◽  
pp. 1134-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuefang Rui ◽  
Haiyi Hu ◽  
Yanlan Yu ◽  
Shicheng Yu ◽  
Zhigen Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy

To compare percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LP) for surgical management for large (>2 cm) renal stones. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases until March 11, 2015, using the following search terms: renalpelvic stone, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, laparoscopic pyelolithotomy. Randomized controlled and prospective and retrospective two-armed studies were included. Sensitivity analysis and assessment of the quality of the included studies and publication bias were performed. Nine studies were included in the study with a patient population of 622. The studies were homogeneous with respect to the primary end point of stone-free rate, but were heterogeneous with respect to operation time, length of hospital stay, and blood loss. A higher percentage of patients who received LP remained stone-free following surgery compared with patients who were treated with PCNL (p=0.001). However, the mean operation time was longer for patients with LP than for those treated with PCNL (p=0.002). There was no difference between procedures with regard to length of hospital stay or blood loss (p≥0.071). Sensitivity and quality analysis indicated that the data are reliable and the included studies are of good quality. No publication bias was observed. The study suggests that both procedures are effective and safe for removing large renal stones. However, LP may be more efficacious than PCNL in treating large kidney stones.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document