{"title":"超声碎石机与超声和气压联合碎石机在经皮肾镜取石术(pcnl)中的疗效比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析","authors":"Anggana Suryatmana, D. Soebadi, T. Djojodimedjo","doi":"10.32421/JURI.V28I2.742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ultrasonic lithotriptor compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Material & Methods: A systematic search was conducted focusing on studies evaluating nephrolithiasis patients who underwent PCNL using pneumatic, ultrasonic, ultrasonic-pneumatic, or laser lithotriptor. The search was conducted in the PUBMED and Science-direct databases from early to September 2020. Results: There were 406 journals in the initial search. On further selection, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were obtained, with a total of 251 patients. The stone-free rate of three studies had low heterogeneity, I2=0% (P=0.34), so a fixed effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.44) between the stone-free rates from the ultrasonic lithotriptor group and the combination with an odds ratio of 1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.26). High heterogeneity was obtained with I2=71% (P=0.03) for the mean fragmentation time, so random effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.56) between the mean fragmentation time of the ultrasonic lithotriptor and combination group with a mean difference of -3.69 (95% CI = -16.09-8.71). Conclusion: The ultrasonic lithotriptor did not have a significant difference in stone-free rate, and mean fragmentation time compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in PCNL. More RCT studies are needed. \n ","PeriodicalId":13565,"journal":{"name":"Indonesian Journal of Urology","volume":"75 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ULTRASONIC LITHOTRIPTOR COMPARED TO COMBINED ULTRASONIC AND PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPTOR IN PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (PCNL) SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS\",\"authors\":\"Anggana Suryatmana, D. Soebadi, T. Djojodimedjo\",\"doi\":\"10.32421/JURI.V28I2.742\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ultrasonic lithotriptor compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Material & Methods: A systematic search was conducted focusing on studies evaluating nephrolithiasis patients who underwent PCNL using pneumatic, ultrasonic, ultrasonic-pneumatic, or laser lithotriptor. The search was conducted in the PUBMED and Science-direct databases from early to September 2020. Results: There were 406 journals in the initial search. On further selection, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were obtained, with a total of 251 patients. The stone-free rate of three studies had low heterogeneity, I2=0% (P=0.34), so a fixed effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.44) between the stone-free rates from the ultrasonic lithotriptor group and the combination with an odds ratio of 1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.26). High heterogeneity was obtained with I2=71% (P=0.03) for the mean fragmentation time, so random effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.56) between the mean fragmentation time of the ultrasonic lithotriptor and combination group with a mean difference of -3.69 (95% CI = -16.09-8.71). Conclusion: The ultrasonic lithotriptor did not have a significant difference in stone-free rate, and mean fragmentation time compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in PCNL. More RCT studies are needed. \\n \",\"PeriodicalId\":13565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indonesian Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indonesian Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32421/JURI.V28I2.742\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indonesian Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32421/JURI.V28I2.742","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较超声气压联合碎石机与超声气压联合碎石机在经皮肾镜取石术中的应用效果。材料与方法:系统地检索了评估肾结石患者采用气动、超声、超声-气动或激光碎石机进行PCNL的研究。从2020年9月初到9月,在PUBMED和Science-direct数据库中进行了搜索。结果:初步检索到406种期刊。进一步选择,获得3项随机对照试验(RCT),共251例患者。三项研究的结石清除率异质性较低,I2=0% (P=0.34),故采用固定效应统计模型。超声碎石机组结石清除率与联合碎石机组无显著差异(P=0.44),优势比为1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.26)。平均破碎时间I2=71% (P=0.03),异质性较高,故采用随机效应统计模型。超声碎石机与联合碎石机的平均破碎时间差异无统计学意义(P=0.56),平均差值为-3.69 (95% CI = -16.09 ~ 8.71)。结论:超声碎石机与超声-气动联合碎石机在PCNL的脱石率、平均碎石时间等方面无显著差异。需要更多的随机对照试验研究。
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ULTRASONIC LITHOTRIPTOR COMPARED TO COMBINED ULTRASONIC AND PNEUMATIC LITHOTRIPTOR IN PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROLITHOTOMY (PCNL) SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of the ultrasonic lithotriptor compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Material & Methods: A systematic search was conducted focusing on studies evaluating nephrolithiasis patients who underwent PCNL using pneumatic, ultrasonic, ultrasonic-pneumatic, or laser lithotriptor. The search was conducted in the PUBMED and Science-direct databases from early to September 2020. Results: There were 406 journals in the initial search. On further selection, 3 randomized controlled trials (RCT) were obtained, with a total of 251 patients. The stone-free rate of three studies had low heterogeneity, I2=0% (P=0.34), so a fixed effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.44) between the stone-free rates from the ultrasonic lithotriptor group and the combination with an odds ratio of 1.26 (95% CI = 0.70-2.26). High heterogeneity was obtained with I2=71% (P=0.03) for the mean fragmentation time, so random effect statistical model was used. There was no significant difference (P=0.56) between the mean fragmentation time of the ultrasonic lithotriptor and combination group with a mean difference of -3.69 (95% CI = -16.09-8.71). Conclusion: The ultrasonic lithotriptor did not have a significant difference in stone-free rate, and mean fragmentation time compared to the combined ultrasonic-pneumatic lithotriptor in PCNL. More RCT studies are needed.