scholarly journals Comparison of vacuum-assisted sheaths and normal sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Urology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling Zhu ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Liping Gou ◽  
Yan Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Postoperative Infection ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of vacuum-assisted sheaths and conventional sheaths in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases (updated March 2021) were used to search for studies assessing the effect of vacuum-assisted sheaths in patients who underwent MPCNL. The search strategy and study selection processes were implemented in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Result Three randomized controlled trials and two case-controlled trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Overall, the stone-free rate (SFR) in patients who underwent vacuum-assisted sheaths was significantly higher than that in patients who underwent conventional sheaths (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.04, 1.46, P = 0.02), with significant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 72%, P = 0.03). In terms of the outcome of complications, vacuum-assisted sheath could bring a benefit to the postoperative infection rate (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33, 0.70, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.68). There was no significant difference in the blood transfusion rate (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07, 1.73, P = 0.17), with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 66%, P = 0.35). Three studies contained operative time data, and the results indicated that the vacuum-assisted sheath led to a shorter operative time (MD = − 15.74; 95% CI − 1944, − 12.04, P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.91). Conclusion The application of a vacuum-assisted sheath in MPCNL improves the safety and efficiency compared to the conventional sheath. A vacuum-assisted sheath significantly increases the SFR while reducing operative time and postoperative infection.

scholarly journals Comparison of Vacuum-Assisted Sheath and Normal Sheath in Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ling Zhu ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Liping Gou ◽  
Yan Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Minimally Invasive ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Postoperative Infection ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy between the vacuum-assisted sheath and conventional sheath in minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) in the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases (updated March 2021) were searched for studies assessing the effect of vacuum-assisted sheath in patients who underwent MPCNL. The search strategy and study selection processes were managed according to the PRISMA statement. Results Three randomized controlled trials and two case-controlled trials that satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this meta-analysis. Overall, the stone-free rate (SFR) in patients who underwent vacuum-assisted sheath was significantly higher than those who underwent conventional sheath (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.08,1.29; P = 0.0002), with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 44%, P = 0.13). In terms of the outcome of complications, vacuum-assisted sheath could bring a benefit to the postoperative infection rate (RR = 0.45, 95%CI = 0.33,0.61; P < 0.00001) with insignificant heterogeneity among the studies (I2 = 0%, P = 0.76). There was no significant difference in blood transfusion rate (RR = 0.54, 95%CI = 0.23,1.29; P = 0.17) with insignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 41%, P = 0.15,). Only two studies reported the perforation and the results were statistically insignificant (RR = 0.25, 95%CI = 0.05,1.17; P = 0.08) with insignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.43). Conclusions Using vacuum-assisted sheath in MPCNL improves the safety and efficiency compared to the conventional sheath. Vacuum-assisted sheath significantly increases the SFR and reduces complications like postoperative infection, blood transfusion, and perforation

scholarly journals Comparison of nephroscopy and cystoscopy used in the treatment of bladder stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BMC Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Gou ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Bladder Stones ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of nephroscopy and cystoscopy in transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) for bladder stones (BS). Methods The PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to January 2021 for studies assessing the effect of different types of endoscopes among patients who underwent TUCL. The search strategy and study selection process were in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Results Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed no difference in stone-free rate (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.98–1.02, p = 1.00) between the two groups and nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, p = 1.00), and all patients were rendered stone free. Use of the nephroscope significantly shortened the operative time compared with the cystoscope group (RR= − 26.26, CI = − 35.84 to − 16.68, p < 0.00001), and there was significant heterogeneity (I2= 87%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in mean urethral entries (RR = 0.66, CI = − 0.71 to − 2.04, p = 0.35), hospitalization (MD = 0.08, 95% CI = − 0.07 to 0.23, p = 0.31) or total complication rate (RR=1.37, 95% CI = 0.47–4.00, p = 0.56) between the two groups. Conclusions In conclusion, this systematic review demonstrates that both nephroscopy and cystoscopy have high stone clearance efficiency, low rates of complications and short hospitalizations. The mean urethral entries depend on the treatment method for large stone fragments. However, the use of nephroscopy can significantly reduce the operative time.

scholarly journals Efficacy of remdesivir versus placebo for the treatment of COVID-19: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desye Gebrie ◽  
Desalegn Getnet ◽  
Tsegahun Manyazewal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Antiviral Drug ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractBackgroundIn spite of the global containment on prevention efforts, the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is continuing to rise, with 1.1 million confirmed cases and 60,124 deaths recorded worldwide since 04 April 2020. The outbreak has a significant threat to international health and economy. At present, there is no approved vaccine or treatment for the disease, while efforts are underway. Remdesivir, a nucleotide-analogue antiviral drug developed for Ebola, is determined to prevent and stop infections with COVID-19, while results are yet controversial. Here, we aim to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effectiveness of remdesivir and placebo in patients with COVID-19.Method and analysisWe will search MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google scholar databases without restriction in year of publication. We will include randomized controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of remdesivir versus placebo for patients confirmed with COVID-19. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA 2015) guidelines for the design and reporting of the results. The primary endpoint will be time to clinical recovery. The secondary endpoints will be all cause mortality, discharged date, frequency of respiratory progression, and treatment-emergent adverse events. Two independent authors will perform study selection, data extraction, and methodology quality assessment. RevMan 5.3 software will be used for statistical analysis. Random/fixed effect model will be carried out to calculate mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes between remdesivir and placebo.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require ethical approval, because no participant’s data will be involved in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The findings of this study will be published in reputable and peer-reviewed journal.RegistrationThis review protocol is submitted in PROSPERO database for registration and we will include the registration number in the revised version of the manuscript.Strengths and limitations of this study➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will increase the quality of evidences.➣This systematic review and meta-analysis will be derived from only randomized controlled trials which will reduce between study heterogeneity.➣Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will be carried out to identify possible reasons that may cause significant heterogeneity between studies.➣The use of Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risk of bias for each included studies to extract and synthesize evidence based conclusions.➣One of the limitation of this study might be the restriction of trials published in English language.

scholarly journals Efficacy of ultrasound guidance for lumbar punctures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 97 (1143) ◽  
pp. 40-47
Author(s):  
LiPei Shu ◽  
Jiao Huang ◽  
Jing Chen Liu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Ultrasound Guidance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Ultrasound guidance has been reported to facilitate the performance of lumbar punctures (LPs). However, the use of ultrasound guidance has not yet received consistent conclusions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of ultrasound-guided LPs. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing ultrasound guidance with traditional palpation for LPs in adults. The primary outcome was risk of failed procedures. A random-effects Mantel-Haenzsel model or random-effects inverse variance model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Twenty-eight trials (N=2813) met the inclusion criteria. Ultrasound-guided LPs were associated with a reduced risk of failed procedures (RR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, p=0.005). No significant heterogeneity was detected (I2=27%) among these trials. It further decreased first attempt to failure (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62, p<0.00001), mean attempts to success (SMD=−0.61, 95% CI −0.80 to −0.43, p=0.00001) and incidences of complications of headache and backache (RR=0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85, p=0.003). Ultrasound guidance is an effective technique for LPs in adults.

scholarly journals Comparison of two transurethral endoscopic modalities used in treatment of bladder stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liping Gou ◽  
Zhenghao Wang ◽  
Ye Zhou ◽  
Xiaofeng Zheng
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Selection Process ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Bladder Stones ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the safety and efficiency of nephroscope and cystoscope in transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL) for bladder stones. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, EBSCO, and the Cochrane library databases (updated January 2021) were searched for studies that assessed the efficacy of different types of endoscopes in TUCL cases. The search strategy and study selection process was managed according to the PRISMA statement. Results: Five randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Our result showed no significant differences in the stone free rate (SFR) across the studies (RR= 1.00; CI 0.98–1.02, p = 1.00). The study heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 1.00) was not significant as all patients were rendered stone free. Using nephroscope can significantly shorten operation times compared to the use of cystoscopy (RR= -26.26; CI -35.84 – -16.68, p < 0.00001) with significant heterogeneity (I2 =87%, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference between mean urethral entries (RR= 0.66; CI -0.71 – -2.04, p = 0.35), hospitalization (MD = 0.08, 95% CI = -0.07-0.23; P=0.31) and the total complication rate (RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.47-4.00, p=0.56). Conclusions: This systematic review demonstrated that using are highly efficient approaches in the clearance of bladder stones and result in a low rate of complication and short hospitalization times. The mean urethral entries are dependent on the treatment method for large stone fragments. However, using nephroscope can significantly reduce operation times. Key words: bladder stones; transurethral; endoscopic treatments; cystoscope; nephroscope

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document