...
首页> 外文期刊>Indian heart journal >Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones
【24h】

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones

机译:系统审查和荟萃分析对冲击波碎石术的临床效果,逆行血管内手术和低杆肾结石的经皮肾功能术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

? 2014 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved. ? 2014 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved. The prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing. Lower-pole stones (LPS) are the most common renal calculi and the most likely to require treatment. A systematic review comparing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in the treatment of ≤20 mm LPS in adults was performed. Comprehensive searches revealed 2741 records; 7 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting 691 patients were included. Meta-analyses for stone-free rate (SFR) at ≤3 mo favoured PNL over SWL (risk ratio [RR]: 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.77) and RIRS over SWL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59). Stone size subgroup analyses revealed PNL and RIRS were considerably more effective than SWL for 10 mm stones, but the magnitude of benefit was markedly less for ≤10 mm stones. The quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) for SFR was moderate for these comparisons. The median SFR from reported RCTs suggests PNL is more effective than RIRS. The findings regarding other outcomes were inconclusive because of limited and inconsistent data. Well-designed, prospective, comparative studies that measure these outcomes using standardised definitions are required, particularly for the direct comparison of PNL and RIRS. This systematic review, which used Cochrane methodology and GRADE quality-of-evidence assessment, provides the first level 1a evidence for the management of LPS. Patient summary We thoroughly examined the literature to compare the benefits and harms of the different ways of treating kidney stones located at the lower pole. PNL and RIRS were superior to SWL in clearing the stones within 3 mo, but we were unable to make any conclusions regarding other outcomes. More data is required from reliable studies before firm recommendations can be made. The prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing. Lower-pole stones (LPS) are the most common renal calculi and the most likely to require treatment. A systematic review comparing shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) in the treatment of ≤20 mm LPS in adults was performed. Comprehensive searches revealed 2741 records; 7 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting 691 patients were included. Meta-analyses for stone-free rate (SFR) at ≤3 mo favoured PNL over SWL (risk ratio [RR]: 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-2.77) and RIRS over SWL (RR: 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.59). Stone size subgroup analyses revealed PNL and RIRS were considerably more effective than SWL for >10 mm stones, but the magnitude of benefit was markedly less for ≤10 mm stones. The quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]) for SFR was moderate for these comparisons. The median SFR from reported RCTs suggests PNL is more effective than RIRS. The findings regarding other outcomes were inconclusive because of limited and inconsistent data. Well-designed, prospective, comparative studies that measure these outcomes using standardised definitions are required, particularly for the direct comparison of PNL and RIRS. This systematic review, which used Cochrane methodology and GRADE quality-of-evidence assessment, provides the first level 1a evidence for the management of LPS. Patient summary We thoroughly examined the literature to compare the benefits and harms of the different ways of treating kidney stones located at the lower pole. PNL and RIRS were superior to SWL in clearing the stones within 3 mo, but we were unable to make any conclusions regarding other outcomes. More data is required from reliable studies before firm recommendations can be made.
机译:还2014年欧洲泌尿外科协会。版权所有。还2014年欧洲泌尿外科协会。版权所有。尿道病的患病率越来越多。下极石(LPS)是最常见的肾结石,最有可能需要治疗。进行系统评价比较冲击波碎石术(SWL),逆行患有患者手术(RIR)和经皮肾传离术(PNL)在成人中≤20mMLPS的治疗中。综合搜索揭示了2741条记录; 7包括招聘691名患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。在≤3Mo的无石油速率(SFR)上的META分析赞成SWL的PNL(风险比[RR]:2.04; 95%置信区间[CI],1.50-2.77)和SWL的RIR(RR:1.31; 95 %CI,1.08-1.59)。石材大小亚组分析显示PNL和RIRS比SWL更有效,而不是GT; 10毫米的石头,但损益的幅度明显少于≤10毫米的石头。 SFR的证据质量(建议评估,开发和评估[级别])适中,可用于这些比较。报告RCT的中位数SFR表明PNL比RIR更有效。由于数据有限和不一致的数据,关于其他结果的结果是不确定的。需要精心设计的,前瞻性,使用标准化定义来衡量这些结果的比较研究,特别是对于PNL和RIR的直接比较。这种系统审查,使用Cochrane方法和级别证据评估,为LPS管理提供了第一级1A证据。患者概要我们彻底检查了文献,以比较不同方式处理位于下极的肾结石的益处和危害。 PNL和RIRS优于SWL,在3月份内清除石头,但我们无法对其他结果进行任何结论。在公司建议之前,可以从可靠的研究中需要更多数据。尿道病的患病率越来越多。下极石(LPS)是最常见的肾结石,最有可能需要治疗。进行系统评价比较冲击波碎石术(SWL),逆行患有患者手术(RIR)和经皮肾传离术(PNL)在成人中≤20mMLPS的治疗中。综合搜索揭示了2741条记录; 7包括招聘691名患者的随机对照试验(RCT)。在≤3Mo的无石油速率(SFR)上的META分析赞成SWL的PNL(风险比[RR]:2.04; 95%置信区间[CI],1.50-2.77)和SWL的RIR(RR:1.31; 95 %CI,1.08-1.59)。石材尺寸亚组分析显示PNL和RIR比SWL更有效,对于> 10毫米石,但≤10mm的石头的效率显着较小。 SFR的证据质量(建议评估,开发和评估[级别])适中,可用于这些比较。报告RCT的中位数SFR表明PNL比RIR更有效。由于数据有限和不一致的数据,关于其他结果的结果是不确定的。需要精心设计的,前瞻性,使用标准化定义来衡量这些结果的比较研究,特别是对于PNL和RIR的直接比较。这种系统审查,使用Cochrane方法和级别证据评估,为LPS管理提供了第一级1A证据。患者概要我们彻底检查了文献,以比较不同方式处理位于下极的肾结石的益处和危害。 PNL和RIRS优于SWL,在3月份内清除石头,但我们无法对其他结果进行任何结论。在公司建议之前,可以从可靠的研究中需要更多数据。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号