scholarly journals Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones: a meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety

BMC Urology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yeda Chen ◽  
Yaoan Wen ◽  
Qingfeng Yu ◽  
Xiaolu Duan ◽  
Wenqi Wu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guihong Liu ◽  
Zeqin Yao ◽  
Guoqiang Chen ◽  
Yalang Li ◽  
Bing Liang

Background: In this meta-analysis, we will focus on evaluating the effects of open nephroureterectomy compared with laparoscopic nephroureterectomy on postoperative results in upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma subjects.Methods: A systematic literature search up to January 2021 was performed, and 36 studies included 23,013 subjects with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma at the start of the study; of them, 8,178 were laparoscopic nephroureterectomy, and 14,835 of them were open nephroureterectomy. They were reporting relationships between the efficacy and safety of open nephroureterectomy compared with laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) or the mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs to evaluate the efficacy and safety of open nephroureterectomy compared with laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in the treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma using the dichotomous or continuous method with a random or fixed-effect model.Results: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in subjects with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma was significantly related to longer operation time (MD, 43.90; 95% CI, 20.91–66.90, p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (MD, −1.71; 95% CI, −2.42 to −1.00, p < 0.001), lower blood loss (MD, −133.82; 95% CI, −220.92 to −46.73, p = 0.003), lower transfusion need (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47–0.67, p < 0.001), and lower overall complication (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70–0.90, p < 0.001) compared with open nephroureterectomy.However, no significant difference was found between laparoscopic nephroureterectomy and open nephroureterectomy in subjects with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma in 2–5 years recurrence-free survival (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69–1.18, p = 0.46), 2–5 years cancer-specific survival (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69–1.28, p = 0.68), and 2–5 years overall survival (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.91–1.87, p = 0.15).Conclusion: Laparoscopic nephroureterectomy in subjects with upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma may have a longer operation time, shorter hospital stay, and lower blood loss, transfusion need, and overall complication compared to open nephroureterectomy. Further studies are required to validate these findings.


2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 518-519
Author(s):  
S. Falahatkar ◽  
A. Sobhani ◽  
K. Gholamjani Moghaddam ◽  
M. Mohiti Asli ◽  
A. Asadollahzade ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052110327
Author(s):  
Weihua Liu ◽  
Wenli Yu ◽  
Hongli Yu ◽  
Mingwei Sheng

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document