Shuba De1, Riccardo Autorino2, Fernando J Kim3, Homayoun Zargar1, Humberto Laydner4, Raffaele Balsamo5, Fabio C Torricelli6, Carmine Di Palma5, Wilson R Molina3, Manoj Monga1, Marco De Sio5. 1. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Urology Service, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy; Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: ricautor@gmail.com. 3. Department of Urology, Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA. 4. Urology Institute, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Urology Service, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 6. Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA; Division of Urology, Hospital das Clinicas, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Recent advances in technology have led to the implementation of mini- and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as well as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of kidney stones. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing RIRS with PCNL techniques for the treatment of kidney stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review was performed in March 2014 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing standard PCNL and minimally invasive percutaneous procedures (MIPPs) including mini-PCNL and micro-PCNL with RIRS, separately. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Two randomised and eight nonrandomised studies were analysed. PCNL techniques provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.13; p<0.00001) but also higher complication rates (odds ratio [OR]: 1.61; 95% CI, 1.11-2.35; p<0.01) and a larger postoperative decrease in haemoglobin levels (WMD: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.22; p<0.00001). In contrast, RIRS led to a shorter hospital stay (WMD: 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77; p<0.0001). At subgroup analysis, RIRS provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than MIPPs (WMD: 1.70; 95% CI, 1.07-2.70; p=0.03) but less than standard PCNL (OR: 4.32; 95% CI, 1.99-9.37; p=0.0002). Hospital stay was shorter for RIRS compared with both MIPPs (WMD: 1.11; 95% CI, 0.39-1.83; p=0.003) and standard PCNL (WMD: 1.84 d; 95% CI, 0.64-3.04; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: PCNL is associated with higher stone-free rates at the expense of higher complication rates, blood loss, and admission times. Standard PCNL offers stone-free rates superior to those of RIRS, whereas RIRS provides higher stone free rates than MIPPs. Given the added morbidity and lower efficacy of MIPPs, RIRS should be considered standard therapy for stones <2 cm until appropriate randomised studies are performed. When flexible instruments are not available, standard PCNL should be considered due to the lower efficacy of MIPPs. PATIENT SUMMARY: We searched the literature for studies comparing new minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of kidney stones. The analysis of 10 available studies shows that treatment can be tailored to the patient by balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.
CONTEXT: Recent advances in technology have led to the implementation of mini- and micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) as well as retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of kidney stones. OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing RIRS with PCNL techniques for the treatment of kidney stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review was performed in March 2014 using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant studies. Article selection proceeded according to the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis criteria. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing standard PCNL and minimally invasive percutaneous procedures (MIPPs) including mini-PCNL and micro-PCNL with RIRS, separately. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Two randomised and eight nonrandomised studies were analysed. PCNL techniques provided a significantly higher stone-free rate (weighted mean difference [WMD]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-3.13; p<0.00001) but also higher complication rates (odds ratio [OR]: 1.61; 95% CI, 1.11-2.35; p<0.01) and a larger postoperative decrease in haemoglobin levels (WMD: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.22; p<0.00001). In contrast, RIRS led to a shorter hospital stay (WMD: 1.28; 95% CI, 0.79-1.77; p<0.0001). At subgroup analysis, RIRS provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than MIPPs (WMD: 1.70; 95% CI, 1.07-2.70; p=0.03) but less than standard PCNL (OR: 4.32; 95% CI, 1.99-9.37; p=0.0002). Hospital stay was shorter for RIRS compared with both MIPPs (WMD: 1.11; 95% CI, 0.39-1.83; p=0.003) and standard PCNL (WMD: 1.84 d; 95% CI, 0.64-3.04; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: PCNL is associated with higher stone-free rates at the expense of higher complication rates, blood loss, and admission times. Standard PCNL offers stone-free rates superior to those of RIRS, whereas RIRS provides higher stone free rates than MIPPs. Given the added morbidity and lower efficacy of MIPPs, RIRS should be considered standard therapy for stones <2 cm until appropriate randomised studies are performed. When flexible instruments are not available, standard PCNL should be considered due to the lower efficacy of MIPPs. PATIENT SUMMARY: We searched the literature for studies comparing new minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of kidney stones. The analysis of 10 available studies shows that treatment can be tailored to the patient by balancing the advantages and disadvantages of each technique.
Authors: Ahmed Mamdouh Abd El Hamed; Hazem Elmoghazy; Mohamed Aldahshoury; Ahmed Riad; Mohammed Mostafa; Fawzy Farag; Wael Gamal Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2017-05-03
Authors: Jennifer Bjazevic; Linda Nott; Philippe D Violette; Thomas Tailly; Marie Dion; John D Denstedt; Hassan Razvi Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ofer N Gofrit; Ioannis Mykoniatis; Ezekiel H Landau; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Dov Pode; Constantinos A Constantinides; Mordechai Duvdevani Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Neel H Patel; Suraj S Parikh; Jonathan B Bloom; Ariel Schulman; Jonathan Wagmaister; Sean Fullerton; John L Phillips; Muhammad Choudhury; Majid Eshghi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.226