Evolución y perfeccionamiento de técnicas endourológicas (urs y nlpc) sin fluoroscopia. Revisión sistemática de la literatura

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Actas urologicas espanolas Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.acuro.2023.04.003
V. Massella , A. Pietropaolo , V. Gauhar , E. Emiliani , B.K. Somani , el Grupo de Trabajo de Urolitiasis de la sección de Jóvenes Urólogos Académicos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU
{"title":"Evolución y perfeccionamiento de técnicas endourológicas (urs y nlpc) sin fluoroscopia. Revisión sistemática de la literatura","authors":"V. Massella ,&nbsp;A. Pietropaolo ,&nbsp;V. Gauhar ,&nbsp;E. Emiliani ,&nbsp;B.K. Somani ,&nbsp;el Grupo de Trabajo de Urolitiasis de la sección de Jóvenes Urólogos Académicos (YAU) de la Asociación Europea de Urología (EAU","doi":"10.1016/j.acuro.2023.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Radiation via the use of imaging is a key tool in management of kidney stones. Simple measures are largely taken by the endourologists to implement the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) principle, including the use of fluoroless technique. We performed a scoping literature review to investigate the success and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures for the treatment of KSD.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature review was performed searching bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library, and 14 full papers were included in the review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 2535 total procedures analysed, 823 were fluoroless URS vs. 556 fluoroscopic URS; and 734 fluoroless PCNL vs. 277 fluoroscopic PCNL. The SFR for fluoroless vs. fluoroscopic guided URS was 85.3% and 77%, respectively (<em>P</em>=.2), while for fluoroless PCNL vs. fluoroscopic group was 83.8% and 84.6%, respectively (<em>P</em>=.9). The overall Clavien-Dindo I/II and III/IV complications for fluoroless and fluoroscopic guided procedures were 3.1% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->71) and 8.5% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->131), and 1.7% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->23) and 3% (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->47) respectively. Only 5 studies reported a failure of the fluoroscopic approach with a total of 30 (1.3%) failed procedures.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The ALARA protocol has been implemented in endourology in numerous ways to protect both patients and healthcare workers during recent years. Fluoroless procedures for treatment of KSD are safe and effective with outcomes comparable to standard procedures and could become the new frontier of endourology in selected cases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7145,"journal":{"name":"Actas urologicas espanolas","volume":"48 1","pages":"Pages 2-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Actas urologicas espanolas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0210480623000761","RegionNum":4,"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

Introduction

Radiation via the use of imaging is a key tool in management of kidney stones. Simple measures are largely taken by the endourologists to implement the ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ (ALARA) principle, including the use of fluoroless technique. We performed a scoping literature review to investigate the success and safety of fluoroless ureteroscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) procedures for the treatment of KSD.

Methods

A literature review was performed searching bibliographic databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library, and 14 full papers were included in the review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Of the 2535 total procedures analysed, 823 were fluoroless URS vs. 556 fluoroscopic URS; and 734 fluoroless PCNL vs. 277 fluoroscopic PCNL. The SFR for fluoroless vs. fluoroscopic guided URS was 85.3% and 77%, respectively (P=.2), while for fluoroless PCNL vs. fluoroscopic group was 83.8% and 84.6%, respectively (P=.9). The overall Clavien-Dindo I/II and III/IV complications for fluoroless and fluoroscopic guided procedures were 3.1% (n = 71) and 8.5% (n = 131), and 1.7% (n = 23) and 3% (n = 47) respectively. Only 5 studies reported a failure of the fluoroscopic approach with a total of 30 (1.3%) failed procedures.

Conclusion

The ALARA protocol has been implemented in endourology in numerous ways to protect both patients and healthcare workers during recent years. Fluoroless procedures for treatment of KSD are safe and effective with outcomes comparable to standard procedures and could become the new frontier of endourology in selected cases.

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
无荧光透视下的内插管技术(尿路和 NLPC)的发展和改进。文献系统回顾
引言 通过成像进行放射治疗是治疗肾结石的关键手段。为贯彻 "尽可能低"(ALARA)原则,输尿管内科医生大多采取简单的措施,包括使用无氟技术。我们进行了一项范围广泛的文献综述,以调查无氟输尿管镜(URS)或经皮肾镜碎石术(PCNL)治疗 KSD 的成功率和安全性。方法通过搜索文献数据库PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆进行文献综述,并根据PRISMA指南将14篇完整论文纳入综述。结果在分析的2535例手术中,823例为无氟URS与556例透视URS;734例为无氟PCNL与277例透视PCNL。无氟 URS 与透视引导 URS 的 SFR 分别为 85.3% 和 77%(P=.2),无氟 PCNL 与透视组的 SFR 分别为 83.8% 和 84.6%(P=.9)。无氟和透视引导手术的 Clavien-Dindo I/II 和 III/IV 级并发症分别为 3.1%(n = 71)和 8.5%(n = 131),以及 1.7%(n = 23)和 3%(n = 47)。只有 5 项研究报告了透视方法的失败,共有 30 例(1.3%)手术失败。治疗 KSD 的无氟手术安全有效,效果与标准手术不相上下,在选定病例中可能成为腔内泌尿学的新领域。
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
Actas urologicas espanolas
Actas urologicas espanolas UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
98
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Actas Urológicas Españolas is an international journal dedicated to urological diseases and renal transplant. It has been the official publication of the Spanish Urology Association since 1974 and of the American Urology Confederation since 2008. Its articles cover all aspects related to urology. Actas Urológicas Españolas, governed by the peer review system (double blinded), is published online in Spanish and English. Consequently, manuscripts may be sent in Spanish or English and bidirectional free cost translation will be provided.
期刊最新文献
El leaking pipeline y las brechas de género en Urología Controversias en el abordaje del cáncer de próstata: consenso de recomendaciones de expertos del norte de España Hacia el cribado poblacional del cáncer de próstata en España Evaluación de los cambios en la función sexual en pacientes sometidos a cirugía endoscópica de la litiasis del tracto urinario superior Producción científica en urología: un análisis bibliométrico de 20 años en Latinoamérica
×
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