Does displacement of lower pole stones during retrograde intrarenal surgery improves stone-free status? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA
Citação
ACTA CIRURGICA BRASILEIRA, v.38, article ID E386623, 10p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Purpose: Kidney stones are one of the most common urological diseases worldwide. The size and location of the stone are the most important factors in determining the most suitable treatment options. The aim of this review was to evaluate the displacement of lower pole stones. Methods: Three studies assessing the efficacy of translocating kidney stones from the lower pole of the kidney to other locations during retrograde intrarenal surgery published in the last 20 years were included. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Web of Science databases using the following search terms: ""Lower pole,"" ""Lithotripsy."" Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4. Results: Stone-free rates were improved through displacement (odds ratio - OR = -0.15; 95% confidence interval-95%CI -0.24--0.05; p = 0.002; I2 = 21%), but at the cost of increased surgical duration (mean difference = -12.50; 95%CI -24.06--0.95; p = 0.03; I2 = 94%). Although this represents a potentially negative outcome, the improvement in clearance rates justifies the additional investment of time and effort. Conclusion: Displacement of lower pole kidney stones for subsequent lithotripsy brings significant benefits in terms of stone-free rate, with no difference in laser energy usage. However, it results in increased surgical time. Despite these factors, the benefits to patients undergoing the procedure are substantial.
Palavras-chave
Lithotripsy, Kidney Calculi, Ureteroscopy
Referências
  1. Assad A, 2021, CUAJ-CAN UROL ASSOC, V15, pE418, DOI 10.5489/cuaj.6877
  2. Assimos D, 2016, J UROLOGY, V196, P1153, DOI 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
  3. Clavien PA, 2009, ANN SURG, V250, P187, DOI 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
  4. Dresner SL, 2020, J ENDOUROL, V34, P655, DOI 10.1089/end.2019.0720
  5. Gallante B, 2020, J UROLOGY, V203, pE207
  6. Hepsen E, 2021, ARCH ESP UROL, V74, P511
  7. Herrell SD, 2002, J ENDOUROL, V16, P15, DOI 10.1089/089277902753483655
  8. Jessen JP, 2014, J ENDOUROL, V28, P146, DOI 10.1089/end.2013.0401
  9. Junbo Liu, 2019, Urol J, V16, P97, DOI 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4681
  10. Kilic O, 2017, TURK J UROL, V43, P252, DOI 10.5152/tud.2017.22697
  11. Kim CH, 2021, MEDICINA-LITHUANIA, V57, DOI 10.3390/medicina57010026
  12. Knudsen BE, 2005, J ENDOUROL, V19, P1092, DOI 10.1089/end.2005.19.1092
  13. Kourambas J, 2000, UROLOGY, V56, P935, DOI 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00821-9
  14. Li ZH, 2020, BMC UROL, V20, DOI 10.1186/s12894-020-00586-6
  15. Martin F, 2014, J ENDOUROL, V28, P141, DOI 10.1089/end.2013.0515
  16. Orywal AK, 2015, J ENDOUROL, V29, P1371, DOI 10.1089/end.2015.0291
  17. Richard F, 2020, PLOS ONE, V15, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0237068
  18. Schuster TG, 2002, J UROLOGY, V168, P43, DOI 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64828-8
  19. Shrestha A, 2023, J ENDOUROL, V37, P21, DOI 10.1089/end.2022.0050
  20. SILVA THIAGO HENRIQUE CAETANO DA, 2022, Rev. Col. Bras. Cir., V49, pe20223264, DOI 10.1590/0100-6991e-20223264-en
  21. Sorokin I, 2017, WORLD J UROL, V35, P1301, DOI 10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6
  22. Thakore P, 2023, Urolithiasis
  23. Wright Anna E, 2014, World J Nephrol, V3, P243, DOI 10.5527/wjn.v3.i4.243
  24. Xiao YL, 2017, BMC UROL, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12894-017-0297-0
  25. Yaghoubian AJ, 2023, J UROLOGY, V209, P963, DOI 10.1097/JU.0000000000003199
  26. Zeng GH, 2023, BJU INT, V131, P153, DOI 10.1111/bju.15836
  27. Zhang L, 2022, CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V14, P971, DOI 10.2147/CLEP.S370591