Shaun Wen-Huey Lee1, Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk1,2,3,4, Huey-Yi Chong1, Men-Long Liong5. 1. School of Pharmacy, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia. 2. School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 3. Center of Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research (CPOR), Department of Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand. 4. School of Pharmacy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA. 5. Department of Urology, Island Hospital, Penang, Malaysia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of various treatments used for lower pole renal calculi. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Collaboration's Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials as well as ClinicalTrials.gov for reports up to 1 April 2014. The search was supplemented with abstract reports from various urology conferences. All randomised, 'blinded' clinical studies including patients treated for lower pole renal calculi of <20 mm were included for review. Two authors independently reviewed 5 194 articles, and identified and selected 13 trials for analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed to generate comparative statistics, while quality was assessed with the Jadad composite scale and risk of bias. RESULTS: All treatment methods examined: percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with an adjuvant therapy (such as inversion, hydration and forced diuresis) were more effective than SWL therapy alone, with risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) of being stone free of: PNL 2.19 (1.62-2.96); URS 1.23 (1.03-1.48); and SWL with an adjuvant therapy 1.30 (1.03-1.63). However, patients treated with the other treatment methods also had a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) compared with SWL, but there was no evidence of a convincing difference between the various techniques and AEs. CONCLUSION: In stones of <10 mm, SWL with an adjuvant therapy appears to have better stone clearance, lower risk of AEs, and need for further treatment. PNL was most effective treating larger stones, after considering both effectiveness and safety of treatment. These should be considered by both physicians and patients alike when considering the choice of treatment and in the revision of clinical practice guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of various treatments used for lower pole renal calculi. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Collaboration's Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials as well as ClinicalTrials.gov for reports up to 1 April 2014. The search was supplemented with abstract reports from various urology conferences. All randomised, 'blinded' clinical studies including patients treated for lower pole renal calculi of <20 mm were included for review. Two authors independently reviewed 5 194 articles, and identified and selected 13 trials for analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed to generate comparative statistics, while quality was assessed with the Jadad composite scale and risk of bias. RESULTS: All treatment methods examined: percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) with an adjuvant therapy (such as inversion, hydration and forced diuresis) were more effective than SWL therapy alone, with risk ratios (95% confidence intervals) of being stone free of: PNL 2.19 (1.62-2.96); URS 1.23 (1.03-1.48); and SWL with an adjuvant therapy 1.30 (1.03-1.63). However, patients treated with the other treatment methods also had a higher risk of adverse events (AEs) compared with SWL, but there was no evidence of a convincing difference between the various techniques and AEs. CONCLUSION: In stones of <10 mm, SWL with an adjuvant therapy appears to have better stone clearance, lower risk of AEs, and need for further treatment. PNL was most effective treating larger stones, after considering both effectiveness and safety of treatment. These should be considered by both physicians and patients alike when considering the choice of treatment and in the revision of clinical practice guidelines.
Authors: Saeed R Khan; Margaret S Pearle; William G Robertson; Giovanni Gambaro; Benjamin K Canales; Steeve Doizi; Olivier Traxer; Hans-Göran Tiselius Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Simon Hein; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jens J Rassweiler; Martin Schoenthaler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 4.226