{"title":"Percutaneous nephroscopy versus flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Conglei Hu, Rui Ma, Yongxiang Shao, Zilong Liang, Meng Cheng, Haofeng Pang, Liping Yao, Fei Liu","doi":"10.1186/s12894-024-01655-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is still controversy about the best minimally invasive surgical method for the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi. We conducted meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCNL and FURL in the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Clinical trial platform, CNKI, VIP until April 2024. We utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS, 0 to 9 stars) to assess the quality of the included literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Totally 15 high-quality studies with 755 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that FURL group was better than PCNL group in blood loss [SMD = 1.713, 95%CI:(0.858, 2.568), Z = 3.928, P = 0.000] and hospital stay [SMD = 2.611, 95%CI: (1.726, 3.496), Z = 5.784, P = 0.000], there was no significant difference in operating time [SMD = 0.079, 95%CI:(-0.43, 0.589), Z = 0.306, P = 0.760], complication rate [OR = 1.793,95%CI: (0.952,2.602), Z = 1.586, P = 0.113], stone-free rate [OR = 1.339, 95%CI: (0.576, 3.112), Z = 0.678, P = 0.497] and symptom-free rate [OR = 3.826,95%CI: (0.561,10.238), Z = 0.966, P = 0.334] as well.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Whether FURL is indeed superior to PCNL in safety, whether FURL's efficacy is really close to PCNL, and whether FURL can surpass PCNL as the first choice for the treatment of renal diverticulum stones in the future need to be further verified by multi-center, large-sample and high-quality studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9285,"journal":{"name":"BMC Urology","volume":"25 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694468/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Urology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-024-01655-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: There is still controversy about the best minimally invasive surgical method for the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi. We conducted meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCNL and FURL in the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi.
Methods: We searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Clinical trial platform, CNKI, VIP until April 2024. We utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS, 0 to 9 stars) to assess the quality of the included literature.
Results: Totally 15 high-quality studies with 755 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that FURL group was better than PCNL group in blood loss [SMD = 1.713, 95%CI:(0.858, 2.568), Z = 3.928, P = 0.000] and hospital stay [SMD = 2.611, 95%CI: (1.726, 3.496), Z = 5.784, P = 0.000], there was no significant difference in operating time [SMD = 0.079, 95%CI:(-0.43, 0.589), Z = 0.306, P = 0.760], complication rate [OR = 1.793,95%CI: (0.952,2.602), Z = 1.586, P = 0.113], stone-free rate [OR = 1.339, 95%CI: (0.576, 3.112), Z = 0.678, P = 0.497] and symptom-free rate [OR = 3.826,95%CI: (0.561,10.238), Z = 0.966, P = 0.334] as well.
Conclusion: Whether FURL is indeed superior to PCNL in safety, whether FURL's efficacy is really close to PCNL, and whether FURL can surpass PCNL as the first choice for the treatment of renal diverticulum stones in the future need to be further verified by multi-center, large-sample and high-quality studies.
期刊介绍:
BMC Urology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of urological disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
The journal considers manuscripts in the following broad subject-specific sections of urology:
Endourology and technology
Epidemiology and health outcomes
Pediatric urology
Pre-clinical and basic research
Reconstructive urology
Sexual function and fertility
Urological imaging
Urological oncology
Voiding dysfunction
Case reports.