scholarly journals Comparison of Micro-Percutaneous and Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoshuai Gao ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Liao Peng ◽  
Xingpeng Di ◽  
Kaiwen Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Stay Time ◽  
Hemoglobin Drop

Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) in the treatment of moderately sized renal stones.Methods: Literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed prior to January 2021. We used odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) for dichotomous variables and continuous variables, respectively. Results were pooled using Review Manager version 5.3 software.Results: A total of six studies involving 291 Microperc and 328 Miniperc cases was included. The overall stone-free rate (SFR) of Microperc was 87.29% (254/291), while the SFR of Miniperc was 86.59% (284/328). Microperc was associated with lower hemoglobin drop (WMD: −0.98; P = 0.03) and higher renal colic requiring D-J stent insertion (OR: 3.49; P = 0.01). No significant differences existed between Microperc and Miniperc with respect to SFR (OR: 1.10; P = 0.69), urinary tract infection (OR: 0.38; P = 0.18), operative time (WMD: −5.76; P = 0.62), and hospital stay time (WMD: −1.04; P = 0.07).Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that Microperc could produce an SFR that was comparable with that of Miniperc. Microperc was associated with lower hemoglobin drop, while Miniperc was associated with lower renal colic rates. In addition, the operation time and hospital stay time for both these procedures were similar.

scholarly journals Micropercutaneous Versus Minipercutaneous for the Management of Moderately Sized Kidney Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoshuai Gao ◽  
Liang Zhou ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Xingpeng Di ◽  
Kaiwen Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Stent Insertion ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Stay Time ◽  
Hemoglobin Drop

Abstract Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Miniperc) and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) for moderately sized renal stones. Methods: Literature search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed before January 2020. We used odds ratios (OR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) for dichotomous variables and continuous variables, respectively. Results were pooled by Review Manager version 5.3 software. Results: A total of 4 studies involving 172 Microperc and 162 Miniperc cases were included. The overall SFR of Microperc was 86.05% (148/172), while the SFR of the Miniperc was 87.65% (142/162). Microperc was associated with lower hemoglobin drop (WMD: -0.98; P = 0.03), higher renal colic requiring D-J stent insertion (OR: 3.49; P=0.01). No significant differences exist between Microperc and Miniperc with respect to stone-free rate (SFR) (OR: 0.90; P=0.75), urinary tract infection (OR: 0.38; P=0.18), operative time (WMD: 14.73; P = 0.54) and hospital stay time (WMD: -1.04; P=0.07). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that Microperc could obtain comparable SFR with Miniperc. Microperc was associated with lower hemoglobin drop, but Miniperc was associated with lower renal colic rates. In addition, the operation time and hospital stay time for these two procedures were similar.

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.

scholarly journals Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery vs. Miniaturised Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy to Treat Lower Pole Renal Stone < 2 cms Diameter in Western Part of Odisha

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (19) ◽  
pp. 1347-1351
Author(s):  
Ashok Kumar Nayak ◽  
Sanjay Kumar Mahapatra ◽  
Braja Mohan Mishra ◽  
Dipti Ranjan Dhar ◽  
Biswajit Sahu
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Operating Time ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Lower Pole ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery ◽  
The Mean

BACKGROUND We wanted to compare the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) in treating lower pole (LP) renal stones with a diameter of < 2 cm in terms of safety, efficacy, and stonefree rate (SFR). METHODS In a retrospective analysis data of 39 patients who underwent mini-PCNL (N = 19) or RIRS (N = 20) for LP stones with a diameter of < 2 cm were reviewed between November 2018 and November 2020 at the Department of Urology in Veer Surendra Sai Institute of Medical Sciences and Research (VSSIMSAR), Odisha. The mean age, sex, stone size, operating time, complications, hospital stay, and SFR were compared between the groups. The success of the procedure was defined as the absence of residual stones or small residuals of size 3mm or less on computed tomography at 12 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS Significant differences were found in the hospital stay duration in hours (103.3 ± 11.7 vs. 145.2 ± 16.4, P < 0.028) between the RIRS and mini - PCNL groups. The mean operation time (in minutes) was also significantly different between the RIRS group (82.5 ± 3.44) and mini PCNL group (86.21 ± 5.90, P = 0.021). The stonefree rates in the postoperative period at three months (RIRS vs. mini - PCNL: 95 % vs. 94 %, P = 0.47) were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS RIRS and mini-PCNL are both safe and effective methods for treating LP stones with a diameter of < 2 cm. RIRS can be considered as a less invasive alternative to PCNL for the treatment of LP stones of < 2 cm with reasonable SFR with shorter hospital stay. KEYWORDS Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, Percutaneous Nephrolithotripsy, Lower Pole Kidney Stones, Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

scholarly journals Laparoscopic versus open major liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative cohort studies

BMC Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Zi-Yu Wang ◽  
Qing-Lian Chen ◽  
Ling-Ling Sun ◽  
Shu-Ping He ◽  
Xiao-Fen Luo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Liver Resection ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Random Effects Models

Abstract Background The application of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) has expanded rapidly in recent decades. Although multiple authors have reported LLR shows improved safety and efficacy in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with open liver resection (OLR), laparoscopic (LMLR) and open (OMLR) major liver resections for HCC treatment remain inadequately evaluated. This work aimed to test the hypothesis that LMLR is safer and more effective than OMLR for HCC. Methods Comparative cohort and registry studies on LMLR and OMLR, searched in PubMed, the Science Citation Index, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, and published before March 31, 2018, were collected systematically and meta-analyzed. Fixed- and random-effects models were employed for generating pooled estimates. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Q-statistic. Results Nine studies (1173 patients) were included. Although the pooled data showed operation time was markedly increased for LMLR in comparison with OMLR (weighted mean difference [WMD] 74.1, 95% CI 35.1 to 113.1, P = 0.0002), blood loss was reduced (WMD = − 107.4, 95% CI − 179.0 to − 35.7, P = 0.003), postoperative morbidity was lower (odds ratio [OR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.63, P <  0.0001), and hospital stay was shorter (WMD = − 3.27, 95% CI − 4.72 to − 1.81, P <  0.0001) in the LMLR group. Although 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) was increased in patients administered LMLR (OR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.31, P = 0.03), other 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival outcomes (overall survival [OS] and/or DFS) were comparable in both groups. Conclusions Compared with OMLR, LMLR has short-term clinical advantages, including reduced blood loss, lower postsurgical morbidity, and shorter hospital stay in HCC, despite its longer operative time. Long-term oncological outcomes were comparable in both groups.

scholarly journals Standard versus Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Renal Stones: A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 145749692092047
Author(s):  
J. Deng ◽  
J. Li ◽  
L. Wang ◽  
Y. Hong ◽  
L. Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Renal Pelvis ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Stone Free Rate ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: To compare the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in order to determine the optimal tract size for patients with renal stones. Methods: A systematic search of Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases was conducted for articles published through 20 August 2019, reporting on a comparison of the standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Results: Of 763 studies, 14 were considered for the evidence synthesis. A total of 1980 cases were included. Of these patients, 897 cases underwent standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and 1083 cases underwent mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Stone-free rates were 87.6% (786 of 897 patients) for standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 87.8% (951 of 1083 patients) for mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy ( p = 0.57). Tract sizes of 30F and 22–26F in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group shorten operation time compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy ( p = 0.02; p = 0.004; respectively). Leakage ( p = 0.04), bleeding ( p = 0.01), blood transfusion ( p < 0.00001), and renal pelvis perforation ( p = 0.02) were more common in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group than in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. Subgroup analysis showed only blood transfusion for 30F and 22–26F standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy group was more common than mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy ( p < 0.0001, p = 0.005, respectively). Conclusion: Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy was associated with higher leakage, bleeding, blood transfusion, and renal pelvis perforation, but had a shorter operation time. Tract size of 30F improved the stone-free rate compared with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, but led to more complications. Tract size of 22–26F was no better than 30F or mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

scholarly journals Impact of Miniaturization on Early Outcome of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-324
Author(s):  
Mahesh Bahadur Adhikari ◽  
Sumeet Karna ◽  
Kinju Adhikari ◽  
Atul Kasaju ◽  
Jagdish Lal Baidya
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
P Value ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Size Standard ◽  
Hemoglobin Drop

Background: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has become the standard procedure for large renal stones but still remains highly challenging due to complications such as bleeding and sepsis, even though it has high stone free rate (SFR). We report the early outcomes of more than 1000 percutaneous nephrolithotomys done in our center.Methods: A retrospective study of all patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy from January 2010 to December 2017 in single institution was conducted. All cases were stratified into three groups based on tract size; standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size ? 22 F, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size 15 – 20 F and ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy with tract size ? 14 F. Age, gender, stone complexity using Guy’s stone score, stone size, operative time, hemoglobin drop, hospital stay, early major and minor complications were reviewed.Results: A total of 1074 patients had undergone percutaneous nephrolithotomy among which, 578 patients were standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, 433 mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 63 had undergone ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. There was even distribution of patients with Guy’s stone score 1 and 2 in all three groups. However, majority of patients with Guy’s stone score 3 underwent standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy or mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and no patients with Guy’s stone score 4 underwent ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Age group, gender and operative time were comparable between the groups; however, significant difference was noted in terms of less hemoglobin drop and shorter hospital stay (p-value < 0.05) in the miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy group. Complications were found to be fewer in mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ultramini percutaneous nephrolithotomy group in comparison to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Conclusions: Miniaturization of tract size significantly decreases post-operative complication rates, blood loss and hospital stay while maintaining high stone free rates in well selected patients undergoing Percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Keywords: Endourology; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; PNL; urolithiasis.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones larger than 2cm in patients with a solitary kidney: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kehua Jiang ◽  
Guangheng Luo ◽  
Jianxing Hu ◽  
Jianguo Zhu ◽  
Fa Sun
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Solitary Kidney ◽  
Systematic Evaluation ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Transfusion Rate ◽  
Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery

Abstract Background: The safety and feasibility of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) compared with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) are debated. This systematic evaluation was performed to obtain comprehensive evidence with regard to the treatment outcomes of PCNL compared with RIRS for management of renal stones in patients with solitary kidney. Methods: A systematic search of Medline, Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library was performed to identify studies that compared PCNL with RIRS. Outcomes of interest included perioperative variables, complications, and stone-free rate (SFR). Results: 4 studies assessing PCNL vs. RIRS were included for meta-analysis. Although patients underwent PCNL have higher initial SFR than RIRS (OR: 3.72, 95% CI:2.38 to 5.83; P＜0.001), patients underwent RIRS have less intraoperative blood loss (dropped Hb: WMD= 3.49 g/L, 95% CI:2.83 to 4.15; P＜0.001), lower blood transfusion rates (OR= 5.31, 95% CI:1.36 to 20.68; P=0.02), and higher incidence rate of steinstrasse (OR:0.20, 95% CI:0.04 to 0.91; P=0.04). All the other calculated results including operation time (WMD: -9.87 minute, 95% CI:-30.11 to 10.37; P=0.34), final SFR (OR:1.65, 95% CI:0.80 to 3.42;P=0.18) and overall complications (OR:1.22, 95% CI:0.78 to 1.93; P=0.38) are similar between the two groups. Conclusions: Our results indicate that PCNL has higher initial SFR than RIRS in the treatment of renal stones in patients with a solitary kidney; the overall complications were comparable in both groups. However, RIRS, with less blood loss and transfusion rate, may be an alternative in selected patients.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of large renal stones: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 030006052098313
Author(s):  
Tie Mao ◽  
Na Wei ◽  
Jing Yu ◽  
Yinghui Lu
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Complementary Treatment ◽  
Laparoscopic Pyelolithotomy ◽  
Stone Free Rate ◽  
Free Rate

Background We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy (LPL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for treating renal stones larger than 2 cm. Methods We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SinoMed, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure databases for studies that compared the surgical outcomes of LPL and PCNL. We conducted a meta-analysis of the retrieved studies, expressed as weighted mean difference or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Results We included 25 studies (1831 patients). LPL was associated with a significantly higher stone-free rate, lower rates of blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications, and less reduction in hemoglobin level compared with PCNL. LPL and PCNL were similar in terms of duration of hospital stay, conversion rate, changes in glomerular filtration rate and creatinine level, and mean time of postoperative analgesia. However, LPL was associated with a longer operation time than PCNL. Conclusion LPL appears to be more effective and safer than PCNL in patients with large renal stones, by increasing the stone-free rate and reducing blood loss, complementary treatment, blood transfusion, and complications compared with PCNL. LPL may thus be a useful modality for treating patients with large renal stones.

scholarly journals Infective complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy in relation to preoperative urine culture status

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-13
Author(s):  
Birendra Kumar Yadav ◽  
Robin Bahadur Basnet ◽  
Anil Shrestha ◽  
Parish Mani Shrestha
Keyword(s):  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Urine Culture ◽  
Operation Time ◽  
Group A ◽  
One Year ◽  
Group B ◽  
Stone Characteristics ◽  
Negative Urine Culture ◽  
Infective Complications

Introductions: Fever and sepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) secondary to urinary tract infection is a major determinant of overall post PCNL complications. This study aims to analyse infective complications after PCNL in relation to pre-operative urine culture status. Methods: A comparative analysis of post PCNL infective complications in pre-operative urine culture positive (Group A) and negative (Group B) was done for one year during June 2017 to May 2018 in department of urology, Bir Hospital, National Academy of Medical Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal. Demographics, stone characteristics, mean operative time, post-operative hospital stay and post-operative complications as per Modified Clavien classification were compared between the two groups. Results: Out of total 136 PCNL patients, 51 were in Group A and 85 in Group B. Infective complications were significantly high, 28 (54.90%) in group A compared to 20 (23.53%) in group B, p=0.004. The most common isolate was Escherichia coli 19 (37.25%), sensitive to amikacin 37 (72.55%). The mean operation time, transfusion and hospital stay was not statically different in two groups. Morality occurred in 1 (1.96%) in group A. Conclusions: Infective complications were significantly high after PCNL in patients with preoperative positive urine culture, even when it was treated to sterile with sensitive antibiotics, compared to patients with preoperative negative urine culture.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document