Home > Riviste > Minerva Urology and Nephrology > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4) > Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4):409-17

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

Opzioni di pubblicazione
eTOC
Per abbonarsi
Sottometti un articolo
Segnala alla tua biblioteca
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Estratti
Permessi
Per citare questo articolo
Share

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Urology and Nephrology 2022 August;74(4):409-17

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6051.22.04678-X

Copyright © 2022 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of renal stones over 2 cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Ioannis MYKONIATIS 1 , Amelia PIETROPAOLO 2, Nikolaos PYRGIDIS 3, Maksim TISHUKOV 1, Anastasios ANASTASIADIS 1, Patrick JULIEBØ-JONES 4, Etienne X. KELLER 5, Michele TALSO 6, Thomas TAILLY 7, Panagiotis KALIDONIS 8, on behalf of the Young Academic Urologists of the European Association of Urology-Urolithiasis and Endourology Working Party

1 School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; 2 Department of Urology, University of Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK; 3 Department of Urology, Martha-Maria Hospital, Nuremberg, Germany; 4 Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; 5 Department of Urology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; 6 Department of Urology, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Luigi Sacco University Hospital, Milan, Italy; 7 Department of Urology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 8 Department of Urology, University of Patras, Patras, Greece



INTRODUCTION: Standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) is recommended for renal stones over 2 cm. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) has also emerged as a promising technique in this setting. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of sPCNL to mPCNL for the management of renal stones over 2cm.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases until April 2021 and sources of grey literature for relevant RCTs. We performed a meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) to compare bleeding or other complications and stone-free rate (SFR) between sPCNL and mPCNL. Similarly, we undertook a meta-analysis of weighted mean differences for the mean operative and hospitalization time between the two techniques (PROSPERO: CRD42021241860).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Pooled data from 8 RCTs (2535 patients) were available for analysis. sPCNL was associated with a higher hemoglobin drop (0.59 g/dL, 95%CI: 0.4-0.77, I2=93%), higher likelihood of postoperative blood transfusion (OR: 2.58, 95%CI: 1.03-6.45, I2=30%) and longer hospital stay (0.75 days, 95%CI: 0.45-1.05, I2=73%) compared to mPCNL. No significant differences were demonstrated in SFR (OR: 0.92, 95%CI: 0.74-1.16, I2=0%) and mean operative time (4.05 minutes, 95%CI: -9.45-1.37, I2=91%) after sPCNL versus mPCNL. Similarly, no significant differences were observed for postoperative fever, pain and Clavien-Dindo complications.
CONCLUSIONS: mPCNL represents a safe and effective technique and may be also recommended as a first-line treatment modality for well-selected patients with renal stones over 2cm. Still, further high-quality RCTs on the field are mandatory since the overall level of evidence is low.


KEY WORDS: Nephrolithotomy, percutaneous; Lithiasis; Meta-analysis

inizio pagina