Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
ABSTRACT Background The purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. Materials and Methods A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4. Results Seven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01). Conclusion In the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time. Trial registration This meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.
Main Authors: | Qin,Pengfei, Zhang,Dong, Huang,Ting, Fang,Li, Cheng,Yue |
---|---|
Format: | Digital revista |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Sociedade Brasileira de Urologia
2022
|
Online Access: | http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1677-55382022000400637 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Similar Items
-
Editorial Comment: Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis
by: Danilovic,Alexandre
Published: (2022) -
Comparison of totally tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones: a randomized, clinical trial
by: Moosanejad,N., et al.
Published: (2016) -
Renal pelvic stones: choosing shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy
by: Marcovich,Robert, et al.
Published: (2003) -
Will the advances in retrograde intrarenal surgery extinguish percutaneous nephrolithotomy for stones larger than 2 cm?
by: Azal Neto,Wilmar, et al.
Published: (2023) -
Editorial Comment: Management of large renal stones with super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an international multicentre comparative study
by: Torricelli,Fábio C. M.
Published: (2021)