Effects of Periosteal Elevation Before Lateral Osteotomy in Rhinoplasty: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives. Although osteotomy is an important part of rhinoplasty, it is known to be closely related to postoperative eyelid edema and ecchymosis. We aimed to evaluate the effects of periosteal elevation prior to osteotomy on eyelid edema and ecchymosis.Methods. Two authors reviewed studies in the Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane databases published through May 2019. Randomized controlled trials comparing periosteal elevation (subperiosteal tunneling) with periosteal preservation that reported eyelid edema or ecchymosis or subconjunctival hemorrhage as outcomes of interest were included. From each study, the baseline characteristics of the study subjects, the quality of the study, the number of patients in the treatment and control groups, and outcomes were extracted.Results. Data for meta-analysis were identified in six studies with a total of 208 patients. Eyelid ecchymosis and edema within 3 days postoperatively were significantly more common in the periosteal elevation group than in the preservation group, although such an association was not found for edema on postoperative day 7 (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.09 to 0.50; I<sup>2</sup> =0%). There was no significant difference in subconjunctival hemorrhage on day 1 (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, –0.09 to 0.72; I<sup>2</sup> =0%).Conclusion. Periosteal preservation during lateral osteotomy may reduce eyelid edema and ecchymosis compared to periosteal elevation. Further studies with rigorous research methods should be carried out to determine the effectiveness of different techniques in lateral osteotomy.

Download Full-text

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Surgical Innovation ◽

10.1177/1553350620907812 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (3) ◽

pp. 291-298

Author(s):

Yinyin Guo ◽

Yanxin Luo ◽

Hui Zhao ◽

Liangliang Bai ◽

Juan Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Surgery ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Bowel Obstruction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Wound Complications ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Stoma Closure ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

Download Full-text

The Effect of Virtual Reality on Preoperative Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9103151 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. 3151

Author(s):

Chang-Hoon Koo ◽

Jin-Woo Park ◽

Jung-Hee Ryu ◽

Sung-Hee Han

Keyword(s):

Virtual Reality ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Pediatric Patients ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Random Effect Model ◽

Preoperative Anxiety ◽

Control Group ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Virtual reality (VR), a technology that provides a stimulated sensory experience, has recently been implemented in various fields of medicine. Several studies have investigated the efficacy of VR on preoperative anxiety. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to validate whether VR could relieve preoperative anxiety in patients undergoing surgery. Electronic databases were searched to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of VR on preoperative anxiety. The primary outcome was defined as the preoperative anxiety scores. We estimated the effect size using the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effect model. Ultimately, 10 RCTs, with a total of 813 patients, were included in the final analysis. Preoperative anxiety was significantly lower in the VR group than in the control group (SMD −0.64, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.20, p = 0.004). In a subgroup analysis, the preoperative anxiety scores were lower in the VR group than in the control group in pediatric patients (SMD −0.71, 95% CI −1.14 to −0.27, p = 0.002), whereas a significant difference was not observed between the two groups in adult patients (p = 0.226). The results of this meta-analysis indicated that VR could decrease preoperative anxiety, especially in pediatric patients.

Download Full-text

Intravenous Colistin Monotherapy versus Combination Therapy against Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacteria Infections: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm7080208 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 (8) ◽

pp. 208 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

I-Ling Cheng ◽

Yu-Hung Chen ◽

Chih-Cheng Lai ◽

Hung-Jen Tang

Keyword(s):

Combination Therapy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Gram Negative Bacteria ◽

Gram Negative ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Carbapenem Resistant ◽

Significant Difference ◽

All Cause Mortality

This meta-analysis aims to compare intravenous colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria (GNB) infections. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched up to July 2018. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating colistin alone and colistin-based combination therapy in the treatment of carbapenem-resistant GNB infections were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Five RCTs including 791 patients were included. Overall, colistin monotherapy was associated with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.89–1.20, I2 = 0%) for all-cause mortality compared with colistin-based combination therapy. The non-significant difference was also detected in infection-related mortality (RR, 1.23, 95% CI, 0.91–1.67, I2 = 0%) and microbiologic response (RR, 0.86, 95% CI, 0.72–1.04, I2 = 62%). In addition, no significant difference was observed in the subgroup analysis—high or low dose, with or without a loading dose, carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infections, and in combination with rifampicin. Finally, colistin monotherapy was not associated with lower nephrotoxicity than colistin combination therapy (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84–1.21, I2 = 0%). Based on the analysis of the five RCTs, no differences were found between colistin monotherapy and colistin-based combination therapy against carbapenem-resistant GNB infections, especially for A. baumannii infections.

Download Full-text

Protective Effects of Vitamin E on Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

10.21203/rs.2.22123/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Huikai Miao ◽

Rongzhen Li ◽

Dongni Chen ◽

Jia Hu ◽

Youfang Chen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Vitamin E ◽

Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Lower Incidence ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Modest Improvement ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Vitamin E Supplementation

Abstract Background Chemotherapy often causes chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), but effective prevention measures are still lacking. Whether vitamin E can prevent peripheral neurotoxicity caused by chemotherapy is inconclusive. Therefore, we collected related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conducted a meta-analysis to examine whether vitamin E could prevent CIPN. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases in November 2019 for eligible trials. Two reviewers conducted the analysis independently when studies were homogeneous enough. Results Eight RCTs, involving 555 patients, were identified. Upon pooling these RCTs, patients who received vitamin E supplementation of 600 mg/day had a significantly lower incidence of peripheral neuropathy (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.65; P = 0.002) induced by chemotherapy compared with the placebo group. Vitamin E played a key role in decreasing the incidence of peripheral neuropathy in the cisplatin chemotherapy group (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; P = 0.0001). With regard to improvements in sural amplitude, vitamin E supplementation significantly decreased patients’ sural amplitude after three rounds of chemotherapy (RR -2.66; 95% CI -5.09 to -0.24; P =0.03) in contrast with that of placebo supplementation, while no significant difference was observed when patients were treated with vitamin E after six rounds of chemotherapy. In addition, the vitamin E group had better improvement in the neurotoxicity score (RR -2.65; 95% CI -4.01to -1.29; P = 0.0001) and a lower incidence of reflexes and distal paraesthesias (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.87; P = 0.01) compared to the control group. Conclusion Available data included in this meta-analysis showed that vitamin E supplementation can confer modest improvement in the prevention of CIPN. However, large-scale, well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm the exact role of vitamin E supplementation in the prevention of CIPN.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Sinomenine Preparation for Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/4593412 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-16

Author(s):

Shan-Shan Lin ◽

Chun-Xiang Liu ◽

Jun-Hua Zhang ◽

Hui Wang ◽

Jing-Bo Zhai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Morning Stiffness ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Objectives. To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of sinomenine preparation (SP) for treating ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods. Clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SP for treating AS were systematically identified in six electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP), and Wanfang Databases from the inception up to 31 October 2019. Cochrane’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the methodological quality and Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze data. Results. A total of 12 RCTs involving 835 patients were finally included. According to interventions, RCTs were divided into two types. The intervention in 10 RCTs was SP combined with conventional pharmacotherapy (CPT) versus CPT and that in 2 RCTs was SP alone versus CPT. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, compared with CPT alone, SP combined with oral CPT has better improvement in BASDAI (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.31, −0.37], P=0.01), morning stiffness time (WMD = −13.46, 95% CI [−16.12, −10.79], P<0.00001), the Schober test (WMD = 1.26, 95% CI [0.72, 1.80], P<0.00001), the occipital wall test (WMD = −0.55, 95% CI [−0.96, −0.14], P=0.009), the finger-to-ground distance (WMD = −3.28, 95% CI [−5.64, −0.93], P=0.006), 15 m walking time (WMD = −8.81, 95% CI [−13.42, −4.20], P=0.0002), the C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −1.84, 95% CI [−3.24, −0.45], P=0.01), and the total effective rate (RR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.01, 1.20], P=0.03). Besides, it also showed that oral SP alone may be more effective in improving morning stiffness time (WMD = −31.89, 95% CI [−34.91, −28.87], P<0.00001) compared with CPT alone. However, this study cannot provide evidence that loading the injectable SP based on CPT can significantly increase the efficacy due to the insufficient number of studies included. In terms of adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental group and the control group. Conclusions. This study shows that oral SP may be effective and safe in the treatment of AS. Due to the low methodological quality of the included RCTs and the limitations of the meta-analysis, it is still necessary to carry out more multicenter, large-sample, and high-quality RCTs to further verify the conclusions. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018099170), and the review was constructed following the PRISMA guidelines (Annex 1).

Download Full-text

Is patient self-reporting more accurate than clinician reporting of symptoms for predicting survival in patients with cancer? Meta-analysis of 30 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2009.27.15_suppl.9597 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 9597-9597

Author(s):

A. Bottomley ◽

C. Coens ◽

M. King ◽

D. Osoba ◽

M. J. Taphoorn ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Prognostic Value ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Symptom Assessment ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Prognostic Accuracy ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Clinician Assessment

9597 Background: This study investigated whether patient self-reporting of symptoms improved prediction of survival as compared to clinician reporting or whether it provided an additive value when taken together with clinician assessment of the same symptoms. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer from 30 European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Randomized Controlled Trials were included in this retrospective pooled analysis. Clinician [Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC)] and patient (EORTC QLQ-C30) symptom assessment were reported at entry into the study. Data were obtained for six symptoms: pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea and constipation. The prognostic accuracy for survival was assessed by modeling the contrast in reporting using the Harrell's discrimination c-index (c). Results: Data were available from patient and clinician assessment for pain [number of trials (t) =8, number of patients (n) =1214], fatigue [t=5, n=1237], vomiting [t=5, n=824], nausea [t=6, n=1393], diarrhea [t=6, n=815] and constipation [t=4, n=751]. Fatigue (c=0.59 vs 0.55, p<.01) and constipation (c=0.57 vs 0.52, p=0.03) as reported by patients (vs clinicians) were significantly higher in predicting survival. Patient reported pain (c=0.59 vs 0.58, p=0.17), nausea (c=0.54 vs 0.52, p=0.51), vomiting (c=0.55 vs 0.52, p=0.21) and diarrhea (c=0.51 vs 0.52, p=0.49) did not predict survival any more accurately than clinician assessment. Patient and clinician assessment combined (vs clinicians alone) improved the prognostic accuracy for fatigue (c=0.61 vs 0.55, p=0.01), pain (c=0.60 vs 0.58, p<0.01), nausea (c=0.54 vs 0.52, p=0.04), vomiting (c=0.56 vs 0.52, p=0.04) and constipation (c=0.5 vs 0.52, p=0.01), but not for diarrhea (c=0.52 vs 0.52, p=0.44). Conclusions: Our results suggest that patients’ ratings of their own fatigue and constipation have more prognostic value than clinicians’ ratings of these symptoms. Further, the prognostic value of clinicians's ratings can be improved by combining them with patients’ assessments for the symptoms pain, fatigue, constipation, nausea and vomiting. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Download Full-text

The effect of folate fortification on folic acid-based homocysteine-lowering intervention and stroke risk: a meta-analysis

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980014002134 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 18 (8) ◽

pp. 1514-1521 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Rui Zeng ◽

Chun-Hua Xu ◽

Yuan-Ning Xu ◽

Ya-Li Wang ◽

Mian Wang

Keyword(s):

Folic Acid ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Stroke Risk ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Folic Acid Supplementation ◽

Folate Intake ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Acid Supplementation ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

AbstractObjectiveFolate and vitamin B12 are two vital regulators in the metabolic process of homocysteine, which is a risk factor of atherothrombotic events. Low folate intake or low plasma folate concentration is associated with increased stroke risk. Previous randomized controlled trials presented discordant findings in the effect of folic acid supplementation-based homocysteine lowering on stroke risk. The aim of the present review was to perform a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials to check the how different folate fortification status might affect the effects of folic acid supplementation in lowering homocysteine and reducing stroke risk.DesignRelevant randomized controlled trials were identified through formal literature search. Homocysteine reduction was compared in subgroups stratified by folate fortification status. Relative risks with 95 % confidence intervals were used as a measure to assess the association between folic acid supplementation and stroke risk.SettingThe meta-analysis included fourteen randomized controlled trials,SubjectsA total of 39 420 patients.ResultsHomocysteine reductions were 26·99 (sd 1·91) %, 18·38 (sd 3·82) % and 21·30 (sd 1·98) %, respectively, in the subgroups without folate fortification, with folate fortification and with partial folate fortification. Significant difference was observed between the subgroups with folate fortification and without folate fortification (P=0·05). The relative risk of stroke was 0·88 (95 % CI 0·77, 1·00, P=0·05) in the subgroup without folate fortification, 0·94 (95 % CI 0·58, 1·54, P=0·82) in the subgroup with folate fortification and 0·91 (95 % CI 0·82, 1·01, P=0·09) in the subgroup with partial folate fortification.ConclusionsFolic acid supplementation might have a modest benefit on stroke prevention in regions without folate fortification.

Download Full-text

Nurse Participation in Colonoscopy Observation versus the Colonoscopist Alone for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials

Gastroenterology Research and Practice ◽

10.1155/2016/7631981 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Lei Xu ◽

Yu Zhang ◽

Haojun Song ◽

Weihong Wang ◽

Sijie Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Detection Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Research Question ◽

Adenoma Detection Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Adenoma Detection ◽

Significant Difference

The role of nurse participation (NP) in colonoscopy observation for polyp and adenoma detection is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether nurse participation can improve polyp and adenoma detection.Patients and Methods. The PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English. The outcome measurements included (1) the polyp and adenoma detection rate (PDR and ADR); (2) the advanced lesions detection rate; and (3) the mean polyp and adenoma detection rate per colonoscopy.Results. Three RCTs with a total of 1676 patients were included. The pooled data showed a significantly higher ADR in the NP group than colonoscopist alone (CA) (45.7% versus 39.3%; RR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04–1.30). And it showed no significant difference in the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate between the two groups (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.95–1.37; RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.91–2.00; resp.).Conclusions. Nurse participation during a colonoscopy can improve the ADR, whereas no benefit for the PDR and advanced lesions detection rate was observed. All RCTs included in the meta-analysis had high risk of bias. Thus, there is a need for new research that uses sound methodology to definitively address the research question under study.

Download Full-text

Randomized Controlled Trials for Comparison of Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Catheter Placement in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.2.12772/v3 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Mei-Lan Sun ◽

Yong Zhang(Former Corresponding Author) ◽

Bo Wang ◽

Tean Ma ◽

Hong Jiang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Peritoneal Dialysis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Catheter Placement ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Large Sample Size ◽

Advantages And Disadvantages ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Aim: The application of laparoscopic catheterization technology in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients has recently increased. However, the advantages and disadvantages of laparoscopic versus conventional open PD catheter placement are still controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the complications of catheterization in PD patients and to provide a reference for choosing a PD-catheter placement technique in the clinic.Methods: We searched numerous databases, including Embase, PubMed, CNKI and the Cochrane Library, for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Results: Eight relevant studies (n=646) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled results showed a lower incidence of catheter migration (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.90, P: 0.03) and catheter removal (OR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.79, P: 0.008) but a higher incidence of bleeding (OR: 3.25, 95% CI: 1.18 to 8.97, P: 0.02) with a laparoscopic approach than with a conventional approach. There was no significant difference in the incidence of omentum adhesion (OR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 2.10, P: 0.24), hernia (OR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.09 to 1.68, P: 0.20), leakage (OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.26, P: 0.23), intestinal obstruction (OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.91, P: 0.90) or perforation (OR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.06 to 15.42, P: 0.97). The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in early (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.33, P: 0.15) , late (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.90, P: 0.76) or total (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.12, P: 0.13) peritonitis infections between the 2 groups, and there are no no significant difference in early ( OR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.06 to 2.36, P: 0.30), late ( OR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.33, P: 0.16) or total ( OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.02, P: 0.17) tunnel or exit-site infections between the 2 groups.Conclusion: Laparoscopic catheterization and conventional open catheter placement in PD patients have unique advantages, but laparoscopic PD catheterization may be superior to conventional open catheter placement. However, this conclusion needs to be confirmed with further large-sample-size, multi-centre, high-quality RCTs.

Download Full-text

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

BMC Surgery ◽

10.1186/s12893-021-01461-3 ◽

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.

Download Full-text