Dataset Information

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Background: Urolithiasis is the most common complication of horseshoe kidney (HK), which can be treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), flexible ureteroscopy (FURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). When comparing treatments of ESWL and FURS, it is unclear which is more efficient and safe. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FURS and SWL for the treatment of urolithiasis in HK patients. Methods: A systematic search of the Web of Science, PubMed, and EMBASE was performed in February 2021. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. Results: Five studies published between 2008 and 2018 were synthesized in the present meta-analysis. The study revealed that FURS compared with SWL had greater initial and overall stone-free rates (SFRs). Risk ratios (RRs) were 2.46 (P < 0.00001) in initial SFRs, 1.36 (P = 0.02) in overall SFRs. No differences were found in the retreatment ratio, RRs were 0.49 (P = 0.43). In addition, no major complications were encountered, and all the complications were mild to moderate. Conclusion: The study demonstrated that FURS and SWL are effective and safe treatments for patients with HK with stones (<20 mm). Moreover, FURS has greater clearance rates and lower complication rates than SWL.

SUBMITTER: Yi X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8572974 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yi Xianyanling X Cao Dehong D You Pinghong P Xiong Xingyu X Zheng Xiaonan X Jin Tao T Peng Ge G Xu Hang H Liao Dazhou D Wei Qiang Q Li Hong H Yang Lu L Ai Jianzhong J

Frontiers in surgery 20211025

<b>Background:</b> Urolithiasis is the most common complication of horseshoe kidney (HK), which can be treated by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), flexible ureteroscopy (FURS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). When comparing treatments of ESWL and FURS, it is unclear which is more efficient and safe. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of FURS and SWL for the treatment of urolithiasis in HK patients. <b>Methods:</b> A systematic search of the W ...[more]

PMID: 34760915

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (f-URS) in treating urinary tract stones.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for literature comparing SWL with f-URS. The primary outcomes we focused on were stone-free rate (SFR) and complications; the secondary outcomes were operation time, hospital stay, retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedures rate. We used ReviewManager version 5.4.1 and STATA version 14.2 for meta-analysis.ResultsSeventeen studies with a total of 2,265 patients were included in the meta-analysis, including 1,038 patients in the SWL group and 1,227 patients in the f-URS group. The meta-analysis indicated that patients in the f-URS group had higher SFR than those in the SWL group [odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.12, p = 0.002]. In addition, we found no significant difference in complications (OR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.85-1.37) between the two treatments. Also, we found that the retreatment rate and the auxiliary procedure rate in the f-URS group were significantly lower than those in the SWL group (OR: 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p < 0.00001; OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.83, p = 0.02). Moreover, the number of sessions in the f-URS group was significantly lower than that in the SWL group [mean difference (MD): -1.96, 95% CI: -1.55 to -0.33, p = 0.003]. However, the operation time and hospital stay in the f-URS group were significantly longer than those in the SWL group (MD: 11.24, 95% CI: 3.51-18.56, p = 0.004; MD: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.85-1.42, p < 0.00001).ConclusionFor 1-2-cm urinary stones, f-URS can achieve a higher SFR than SWL while having a lower retreatment rate, number of sessions, and auxiliary procedure rate. For urinary stones <1 cm, there was no significant difference in SFR between SWL and f-URS groups. The SWL group has a shorter operative time and hospital stay than the f-URS group.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Treatment of Urolithiasis in Horseshoe Kidney Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets