Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Urolithiasis 1/2023

01.12.2023 | Research

Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1–2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials

verfasst von: Atalel Fentahun Awedew, Yakob Sheiferawe Seman, Dawit Zerihun Yalew, Yohannes Chemere Wondmeneh, Wassie Almaw Yigzaw

Erschienen in: Urolithiasis | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The management of medium-sized (1–2 cm) lower poles renal stone has been a contentious topic for endourologists. There are limited evidences to answer the best management options for medium-sized lower pole renal stone. This network meta-analysis provided high-level evidences on efficacy and safety of profile of PCNL, Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, RIRS, Micro-PCNL, SWL for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. Systemic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials was conducted. The PICOS (Population, Interventions, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study) approach was used to look for relevant studies. Searches were conducted at major electronic databases like Medline via PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Cochrane library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov to find relevant articles from the inception to April 19, 2023. Fourteen randomized control trials involving 2194 patients were among these studies that met the eligibility criteria. Pooled SFR was Mini-PNCL 98% (95% CI 96–99%), Ultara-PCNL 96% (95% CI 93–98%), RIRS 90% (95% CI 88–92%), PCNL 88% (95% CI 85–92%), Micro-PCNL 77% (61–88%) and SWL 69% (95% CI 65–74%). Mini-PCNL provided a statistically significant higher SFR compared to RIRS (RR = 2.43 91.52; 3.89)), Micro-PCNL (RR = 3.19 (1.09; 9.38)), and SWL (RR = 6.17 (3.65; 10.44)), but there was no statistical significance with standard PCNL (RR = 1.06 (0.52; 2.16)) and Ultra-PCNL (RR = 1.37 (0.75; 2.51)) for management of medium-sized lower pole renal stone. The order of SUCRA values for complication rate was as follows: PCNL(90%), Micro-PCNL(70%), Mini-PCNL(50%), Ultra-PCNL(50%), RIRS(40%), and SWL(10%). The current pooled evidence from fourteen randomized control trials revealed that Mini-PCNL, Ultra-PCNL, and standard PCNL are likely the best treatments for medium-sized lower poles when SFR over a short period of minimal session is a priority. These treatment options have a higher rate of complications, longer hospital stays, and acceptable operations time. RIRS and SWL treatment have acceptable efficacy stone-free rate with low complication rate, short hospital stays, and operation time. These treatment option would be the best fit for solitary kidney, coagulopathy, and comorbidity.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang L, Zhang X, Pu Y, Zhang Y, Fan J (2022) Global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Clin Epidemiol 15(14):971–983. https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S370591. (PMID:35996396;PMCID:PMC9391934)CrossRef Zhang L, Zhang X, Pu Y, Zhang Y, Fan J (2022) Global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis from 1990 to 2019: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Clin Epidemiol 15(14):971–983. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2147/​CLEP.​S370591. (PMID:35996396;PMCID:PMC9391934)CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bozzini G, Aydogan TB, Müller A, Sighinolfi MC, Besana U, Calori A, Lorenzo B, Govorov A, Pushkar DY, Pini G, Pastore AL, Romero-Otero J, Rocco B, Buizza C (2020) A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study. BMC Urol 20(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00636-z. (PMID:32522171;PMCID:PMC7288549)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bozzini G, Aydogan TB, Müller A, Sighinolfi MC, Besana U, Calori A, Lorenzo B, Govorov A, Pushkar DY, Pini G, Pastore AL, Romero-Otero J, Rocco B, Buizza C (2020) A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study. BMC Urol 20(1):67. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12894-020-00636-z. (PMID:32522171;PMCID:PMC7288549)CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, part II. J Urol 196:1161CrossRefPubMed Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline, part II. J Urol 196:1161CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, Liu JM, Wang KJ (2017) Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 31(11):1101–1110. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0547. (Epub 2017 Oct 30 PMID: 28950716)CrossRefPubMed Gao XS, Liao BH, Chen YT, Feng SJ, Gao R, Luo DY, Liu JM, Wang KJ (2017) Different tract sizes of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol 31(11):1101–1110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​end.​2017.​0547. (Epub 2017 Oct 30 PMID: 28950716)CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Türk C, Yuan Y, Knoll T (2017) Tract sizes in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from the European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines panel. Eur Urol 72(2):220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046. (Epub 2017 Feb 23 PMID: 28237786)CrossRefPubMed Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, MacLennan S, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Türk C, Yuan Y, Knoll T (2017) Tract sizes in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from the European association of urology urolithiasis guidelines panel. Eur Urol 72(2):220–235. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eururo.​2017.​01.​046. (Epub 2017 Feb 23 PMID: 28237786)CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898. (PMID: 31462531)CrossRefPubMed Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR, Hernán MA, Hopewell S, Hróbjartsson A, Junqueira DR, Jüni P, Kirkham JJ, Lasserson T, Li T, McAleenan A, Reeves BC, Shepperd S, Shrier I, Stewart LA, Tilling K, White IR, Whiting PF, Higgins JPT (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​bmj.​l4898. (PMID: 31462531)CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Terribile M, Arcaniolo D, Bottone F, Stizzo M, Amicuzi U, Oliva F et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of SWL, RIRS and PCNL in lower caliceal stones. Eur Urol Suppl 18(7):e2971CrossRef Terribile M, Arcaniolo D, Bottone F, Stizzo M, Amicuzi U, Oliva F et al (2019) Efficacy and safety of SWL, RIRS and PCNL in lower caliceal stones. Eur Urol Suppl 18(7):e2971CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G et al (2017) A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : a better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol 35(12):1967–1975CrossRefPubMed Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G et al (2017) A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : a better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol 35(12):1967–1975CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Yavuz A, Kilinc MF, Bayar G (2020) Outcomes of different minimally invasive techniques in lower calyceal stones of 1 to 2 centimeters: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Esp Urol 73(4):307–315 (PMID: 32379066)PubMed Yavuz A, Kilinc MF, Bayar G (2020) Outcomes of different minimally invasive techniques in lower calyceal stones of 1 to 2 centimeters: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Esp Urol 73(4):307–315 (PMID: 32379066)PubMed
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Coskun A, Eryildirim B, Sarica K, Camur E, Can U, Saglam E (2021) Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the minimal invasive management of lower caliceal Stones. Urol J 18(5):485–490PubMed Coskun A, Eryildirim B, Sarica K, Camur E, Can U, Saglam E (2021) Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (Mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the minimal invasive management of lower caliceal Stones. Urol J 18(5):485–490PubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Jin L, Yang B, Zhou Z, Li N (2019) Comparative efficacy on flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of medium-sized lower-pole renal calculi. J Endourol 33(11):914–919CrossRefPubMed Jin L, Yang B, Zhou Z, Li N (2019) Comparative efficacy on flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of medium-sized lower-pole renal calculi. J Endourol 33(11):914–919CrossRefPubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar Jha S, Kumar R, Singh H (2015) A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164CrossRefPubMed Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar Jha S, Kumar R, Singh H (2015) A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 193(1):160–164CrossRefPubMed
21.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Soliman T, Sherif H, Sebaey A, Mohey A, Elmohamady BN (2021) Miniperc vs shockwave lithotripsy for average-sized, radiopaque lower pole calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol 35(6):896–901CrossRefPubMed Soliman T, Sherif H, Sebaey A, Mohey A, Elmohamady BN (2021) Miniperc vs shockwave lithotripsy for average-sized, radiopaque lower pole calculi: a prospective randomized study. J Endourol 35(6):896–901CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Ur Rehman O, Imran M, Rafaqat M, Haider FUR, Rehman A, Farooq U et al (2023) Outcomes in lower pole kidney stone management Using mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared with retrograde intra renal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus 15(2):e35343PubMedPubMedCentral Ur Rehman O, Imran M, Rafaqat M, Haider FUR, Rehman A, Farooq U et al (2023) Outcomes in lower pole kidney stone management Using mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy compared with retrograde intra renal surgery: a randomized controlled trial. Cureus 15(2):e35343PubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Perri D, Berti L, Pacchetti A, Morini E, Maltagliati M, Besana U, Pastore AL, Romero-Otero J, Saredi G, Centrella D, Sighinolfi MC, Rocco B, Micali S, Broggini P, Boldini M, Mazzoleni F, Bozzini G (2022) A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 40(10):2555–2560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04133-w. (Epub 2022 Aug 27 PMID: 36029330)CrossRefPubMed Perri D, Berti L, Pacchetti A, Morini E, Maltagliati M, Besana U, Pastore AL, Romero-Otero J, Saredi G, Centrella D, Sighinolfi MC, Rocco B, Micali S, Broggini P, Boldini M, Mazzoleni F, Bozzini G (2022) A comparison among RIRS and MiniPerc for renal stones between 10 and 20 mm using thulium fiber laser (Fiber Dust): a randomized controlled trial. World J Urol 40(10):2555–2560. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00345-022-04133-w. (Epub 2022 Aug 27 PMID: 36029330)CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022CrossRefPubMed Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A et al (2014) Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 83(5):1016–1022CrossRefPubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Zeng G, Zhang T, Agrawal M, He X, Zhang W, Xiao K et al (2018) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 122(6):1034–1040CrossRefPubMed Zeng G, Zhang T, Agrawal M, He X, Zhang W, Xiao K et al (2018) Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 122(6):1034–1040CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhang H, Hong TY, Li G, Jiang N, Hu C, Cui X et al (2019) Comparison of the efficacy of ultra-mini PCNL, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy on the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol Int 102(2):153–159CrossRefPubMed Zhang H, Hong TY, Li G, Jiang N, Hu C, Cui X et al (2019) Comparison of the efficacy of ultra-mini PCNL, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy on the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol Int 102(2):153–159CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Somani B, Adamou C, Emiliani E, Knoll T, Skolarikos A, Tailly T (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones less than 2 cm in maximum diameter. J Urol 204(3):427–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001013CrossRefPubMed Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Somani B, Adamou C, Emiliani E, Knoll T, Skolarikos A, Tailly T (2020) Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones less than 2 cm in maximum diameter. J Urol 204(3):427–433. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​JU.​0000000000001013​CrossRefPubMed
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, McClinton S (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 67(4):612–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.054. (Epub 2014 Oct 23 PMID: 25449204)CrossRefPubMed Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, McClinton S (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 67(4):612–616. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​eururo.​2014.​09.​054. (Epub 2014 Oct 23 PMID: 25449204)CrossRefPubMed
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Yuri P, Hariwibowo R, Soeroharjo I, Danarto R, Hendri AZ, Brodjonegoro SR, Rasyid N, Birowo P, Widyahening IS (2018) Meta-analysis of optimal management of lower pole stone of 10–20 mm: flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneus nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Acta Med Indones 50(1):18–25 (PMID: 29686172)PubMed Yuri P, Hariwibowo R, Soeroharjo I, Danarto R, Hendri AZ, Brodjonegoro SR, Rasyid N, Birowo P, Widyahening IS (2018) Meta-analysis of optimal management of lower pole stone of 10–20 mm: flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneus nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Acta Med Indones 50(1):18–25 (PMID: 29686172)PubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Cabrera JD, Manzo BO, Torres JE, Vicentini FC, Sánchez HM, Rojas EA, Lozada E (2020) Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 10–20 mm lower pole renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 38(10):2621–2628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-03043-8. (Epub 2019 Dec 7 PMID: 31813026)CrossRefPubMed Cabrera JD, Manzo BO, Torres JE, Vicentini FC, Sánchez HM, Rojas EA, Lozada E (2020) Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 10–20 mm lower pole renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 38(10):2621–2628. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00345-019-03043-8. (Epub 2019 Dec 7 PMID: 31813026)CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Tepeler A, Akman T, Silay MS, Akcay M, Ersoz C, Kalkan S et al (2014) Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 42(3):275–279CrossRefPubMed Tepeler A, Akman T, Silay MS, Akcay M, Ersoz C, Kalkan S et al (2014) Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure during micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and conventional percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urolithiasis 42(3):275–279CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Efficacy and safety of surgical treatment for 1–2 cm sized lower pole of renal stone: network meta-analysis of randomized control trials
verfasst von
Atalel Fentahun Awedew
Yakob Sheiferawe Seman
Dawit Zerihun Yalew
Yohannes Chemere Wondmeneh
Wassie Almaw Yigzaw
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2023
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Urolithiasis / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Elektronische ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01454-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Urolithiasis 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.