Mariela Corrales1,2, Steeve Doizi1,2, Yazeed Barghouthy1,2, Hatem Kamkoum1,2, Bhaskar Somani3, Olivier Traxer1,2. 1. Sorbonne Université, GRC n°20, Groupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. 2. Sorbonne Université, Service d'Urologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Tenon, Paris, France. 3. Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Objective: To compare whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided access percutaneous nephrolithotomy (USGA-PCNL) are similar to standard fluoroscopy-guided access percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FGA-PCNL). Methods: A review was developed by using the MEDLINE and Scopus databases and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Studies comparing the USGA-PCNL and the FGA-PCNL were included. Case reports, editorials and letters, unpublished studies, posters, and comments abstracts were excluded. Results: We found 12 published articles that compared USGA-PCNL and FGA-PCNL. These included six randomized controlled trials, three case-control trials, and three meta-analyses. The overall results showed no difference in the success of percutaneous access, bleeding, blood transfusion, operative time, postoperative complications, or hospital stay. Conclusion: The reported data demonstrate that there are no significant differences between the fluoroscopic-guided access PCNL and the ultrasonographic access PCNL. The choice of puncture depends on the surgeon's expertise in a particular technique and the patient and stone characteristics. Both approaches are equally safe and effective in experienced hands. It is important to recall that the use of one technique does not exclude the use of the other, and they can sometimes be complementary to each other.
Objective: To compare whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided access percutaneous nephrolithotomy (USGA-PCNL) are similar to standard fluoroscopy-guided access percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FGA-PCNL). Methods: A review was developed by using the MEDLINE and Scopus databases and following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Studies comparing the USGA-PCNL and the FGA-PCNL were included. Case reports, editorials and letters, unpublished studies, posters, and comments abstracts were excluded. Results: We found 12 published articles that compared USGA-PCNL and FGA-PCNL. These included six randomized controlled trials, three case-control trials, and three meta-analyses. The overall results showed no difference in the success of percutaneous access, bleeding, blood transfusion, operative time, postoperative complications, or hospital stay. Conclusion: The reported data demonstrate that there are no significant differences between the fluoroscopic-guided access PCNL and the ultrasonographic access PCNL. The choice of puncture depends on the surgeon's expertise in a particular technique and the patient and stone characteristics. Both approaches are equally safe and effective in experienced hands. It is important to recall that the use of one technique does not exclude the use of the other, and they can sometimes be complementary to each other.
Authors: B O Manzo; J E Torres; J D Cabrera; E Lozada; E Emiliani; F Sepulveda; C Morales; I Morales; H M Sanchez Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 4.226