EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY WITH LASER LITHOTRIPSY IN THE TREATMENT OF URETERAL STONES <20 MILLIMETERS IN CHILDREN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.

Danang Irsayanto, Muhammad Rifki Setiawan, Sirin Salsabila, Ida Bagus Gde Tirta Yoga Yatindra, Johan Renaldo, Soetojo Wirjopranoto
{"title":"EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPSY WITH LASER LITHOTRIPSY IN THE TREATMENT OF URETERAL STONES <20 MILLIMETERS IN CHILDREN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.","authors":"Danang Irsayanto, Muhammad Rifki Setiawan, Sirin Salsabila, Ida Bagus Gde Tirta Yoga Yatindra, Johan Renaldo, Soetojo Wirjopranoto","doi":"10.55519/JAMC-01-12288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ureterorenoscopy (URS) in treating ureteral stones in children is preferred for >10 mm-sized stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy is often used, but laser lithotripsy is gaining more popularity over the years, as it is considered better in terms of safety and efficacy. However, no previous meta-analysis has discussed the comparison of these two modalities. This meta-analysis compared pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in children with ureteral stones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This meta-analytic study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion studies were retrieved by thoroughly searching Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Embase databases, focusing on the comparative intervention of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the paediatric population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study analysis showed that laser lithotripsy had a significantly higher stone-free rate (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.06 - 4.00; p=0.03) and lower stone retropulsion (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.87; p=0.02) compared to pneumatic lithotripsy. However, mean operative time (MD: 2.33; 95% CI: -4.09-8.74; p=0.48), length of stay (MD: -0.17; 95% CI: -0.36-0.02; p=0.08), post-operative fever (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.48-4.66; p=0.48), and ureteral injury (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.08-2.48; p=0.35) was not different between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A higher stone-free rate (SFR) and a lower incidence of stone retropulsion can be achieved using laser lithotripsy instead of pneumatic lithotripsy for treating ureteral stones in children.</p>","PeriodicalId":517395,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","volume":"36 1","pages":"201-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ayub Medical College, Abbottabad : JAMC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.55519/JAMC-01-12288","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Ureterorenoscopy (URS) in treating ureteral stones in children is preferred for >10 mm-sized stones. Pneumatic lithotripsy is often used, but laser lithotripsy is gaining more popularity over the years, as it is considered better in terms of safety and efficacy. However, no previous meta-analysis has discussed the comparison of these two modalities. This meta-analysis compared pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in children with ureteral stones.

Methods: This meta-analytic study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion studies were retrieved by thoroughly searching Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, and Embase databases, focusing on the comparative intervention of pneumatic and laser lithotripsy in the paediatric population.

Results: Study analysis showed that laser lithotripsy had a significantly higher stone-free rate (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.06 - 4.00; p=0.03) and lower stone retropulsion (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.16-0.87; p=0.02) compared to pneumatic lithotripsy. However, mean operative time (MD: 2.33; 95% CI: -4.09-8.74; p=0.48), length of stay (MD: -0.17; 95% CI: -0.36-0.02; p=0.08), post-operative fever (OR: 1.50; 95% CI: 0.48-4.66; p=0.48), and ureteral injury (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.08-2.48; p=0.35) was not different between the two groups.

Conclusions: A higher stone-free rate (SFR) and a lower incidence of stone retropulsion can be achieved using laser lithotripsy instead of pneumatic lithotripsy for treating ureteral stones in children.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气压碎石与激光碎石治疗儿童输尿管结石(小于20毫米)的有效性和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:治疗儿童输尿管结石的输尿管造影术(URS)适用于大于10毫米的结石。气压碎石术是常用的方法,但近年来激光碎石术越来越受欢迎,因为它被认为在安全性和有效性方面更胜一筹。然而,以往的荟萃分析从未讨论过这两种方式的比较。这项荟萃分析比较了气压碎石和激光碎石对输尿管结石患儿的治疗效果:这项荟萃分析研究遵循了系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。通过全面搜索 Pubmed、Scopus、ScienceDirect、Web of Science 和 Embase 数据库,检索了纳入研究,重点关注气压碎石术和激光碎石术在儿科人群中的干预效果比较:研究分析表明,与气动碎石相比,激光碎石的无结石率明显更高(OR:2.06;95% CI:1.06 - 4.00;P=0.03),结石逆推率更低(OR:0.37;95% CI:0.16-0.87;P=0.02)。然而,两组患者的平均手术时间(MD:2.33;95% CI:-4.09-8.74;p=0.48)、住院时间(MD:-0.17;95% CI:-0.36-0.02;p=0.08)、术后发热(OR:1.50;95% CI:0.48-4.66;p=0.48)和输尿管损伤(OR:0.43;95% CI:0.08-2.48;p=0.35)没有差异:结论:在治疗儿童输尿管结石时,用激光碎石代替气压碎石可获得更高的无结石率(SFR)和更低的结石逆推发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PREVALENCE AND PATTERN OF INJURY IN SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES PRESENTED AT KHYBER MEDICAL COLLEGE PESHAWAR. PREOPERATIVE DENOSUMAB AND FEASIBILITY OF LESS MORBID SURGERY IN CAMPANACCI STAGE 3 GIANT CELL TUMOUR OF BONE. ADENOMYOEPITHELIOMA WITH CARCINOMA; EPITHELIAL-MYOEPITHELIAL CARCINOMA WITH EARLY PULMONARY METASTASIS. ASSESSMENT OF POSTOPERATIVE ANALGESIC EFFECT OF RECTUS SHEATH BLOCK IN GYNECOLOGICAL LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY. ASSOCIATION OF CONSANGUINITY WITH RECURRENT FOETAL LOSS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1