Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the management of renal stones: A meta‑analysis

Zhu,Ming; Wang,Xiaoyi; Shi,Zhanqin; Ding,Min; Fan,Deyong; Wang,Xiang; Jiang,Rui

doi:10.3892/etm.2019.7710

Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the management of renal stones: A meta‑analysis

Authors:
- Ming Zhu
- Xiaoyi Wang
- Zhanqin Shi
- Min Ding
- Deyong Fan
- Xiang Wang
- Rui Jiang
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Nephrology Department, First Affiliated Hospital, Huzhou Teachers College, The First People's Hospital of Huzhou, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313000, P.R. China, Nephrology Department, Huzhou Central Hospital, Huzhou, Zhejiang 313003, P.R. China
Published online on: June 25, 2019 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7710
Pages: 1366-1374
Copyright: © Zhu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) is recommended as the first‑line treatment for the management of kidney stones that are ≥2 cm in diameter. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become increasingly preferred due to its high level of safety and repeatability, particularly in small stones. However, whether PCNL has superior efficacy and lower complication rates when compared with RIRS remains controversial. Therefore, the present meta‑analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCNL and RIRS as therapy for renal stones. Clinical trials published in PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) were systematically reviewed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of patients with renal stones who were treated with PCNL or RIRS. Main outcomes measures included stone‑free rate, operative time, hospital stay, and complication rate. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR), or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed‑effects or random‑effects model according to the heterogeneity among the studies. In total, 17 studies [4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 cohort studies] involving 1,717 patients met the inclusion criteria, and were included in this meta‑analysis. Pooled results showed that PCNL exhibited a significantly higher stone‑free rate (RR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.95; P<0.001) but was associated with a longer hospital stay, when compared with RIRS (WMD=‑2.72, 95% CI: ‑3.9 to ‑1.54; P<0.001). Operative time (WMD=7.86, 95% CI: ‑0.89 to 16.61; P=0.078) and complication rate (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.05; P=0.083) did not significantly differ between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that PCNL had a shorter operation time than RIRS in patients with stone sizes ≥2 cm (WMD=12.88, 95% CI: 4.77 to 20.99; P=0.002), and PCNL had a similar stone‑free rate as RIRS when the estimates were pooled from RCTs (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.01; P=0.078). Compared with PCNL, RIRS had a significantly lower stone‑free rate, shorter hospital stay, but a similar operation time and complication rate. Therefore, we propose that RIRS may be an alternative therapy to PCNL, with acceptable efficacy and complication rates for renal stones. Further large‑scale, well‑conducted RCTs are required to verify our findings.

View Figures

View References

1	Stamatelou KK, Francis ME, Jones CA, Nyberg LM and Curhan GC: Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int. 63:1817–1823. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE, Nakada SY, Pearle MS and Wolf JS Jr; AUA Nephrolithiasis Guideline Panel, : Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: Diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol. 173:1991–2000. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Michel MS, Trojan L and Rassweiler JJ: Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol. 51:899–906. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	de la Rosette J, Assimos D, Desai M, Gutierrez J, Lingeman J, Scarpa R and Tefekli A; CROES PCNL Study Group, : The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: Indications, complications, and outcomes in 5,803 patients. J Endourol. 25:11–17. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Traxer O, Dubosq F, Jamali K, Gattegno B and Thibault P: New-generation flexible ureterorenoscopes are more durable than previous ones. Urology. 68:276–281. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT, Lam JS and Schulam PG: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater-is this the new frontier? J Urol. 179:981–984. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ and McQuay HJ: Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 17:1–12. 1996. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J and Gluud C: Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 135:982–989. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Wells G, Shea B, O'connell D, Peterson J and Welch V: The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. 3rd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics. 3–5. 2000.
10	DerSimonian R and Laird N: Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 7:177–188. 1986. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ and Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 327:557–560. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Mantel N and Haenszel W: Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 22:719–748. 1959.PubMed/NCBI
13	Begg CB and Mazumdar M: Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 50:1088–1101. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M and Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 315:629–634. 1997. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Akman T, Binbay M, Ozgor F, Ugurlu M, Tekinarslan E, Kezer C, Aslan R and Muslumanoglu AY: Comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and retrograde flexible nephrolithotripsy for the management of 2–4 cm stones: A matched-pair analysis. BJU Int. 109:1384–1389. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Bryniarski P, Paradysz A, Zyczkowski M, Kupilas A, Nowakowski K and Bogacki R: A randomized controlled study to analyze the safety and efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal stones more than 2 cm in diameter. J Endourol. 26:52–57. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Pan J, Chen Q, Xue W, Chen Y, Xia L, Chen H and Huang Y: RIRS versus mPCNL for single renal stone of 2–3 cm: Clinical outcome and cost-effective analysis in Chinese medical setting. Urolithiasis. 41:73–78. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Hyams ES and Shah O: Percutaneous nephrostolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy/holmium laser lithotripsy: Cost and outcome analysis. J Urol. 182:1012–1017. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Li J, Wang J, Li Y, Tong F, Zhai C and Ye L: Comparative study of transurethral flexible ureteroscope lithotripsy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treatment of renal calyceal calculi. J Kunming Med Univ. 36:134–136. 2015.
20	Guo W, Yan R, Wang L, Zhang J and Liu C: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscope holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi. Int Med Health Guidance News. 21:1520–1524. 2015.(In Chinese).
21	Cao Y, Jiang Z and Shi L: Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy for the treatment of renal calculi. Int J Urol Nephrol. 34:805–808. 2014.
22	Yang R, Kang J and Chen D: Flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy holmium laser lithotripsy for renal calculi (<2 cm) clinical effect comparison. Med Infor. 28:37–38. 2015.
23	Zhu Y, Su H and Deng Q: Comparative efficacy analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of renal calyceal stones. J Luzhou Med Col. 382–383. 2013.
24	Yao H, Song C and Liu L: Comparison of therapeutic effects of renal calculi witll ureteroscopic holminum laser fithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrostofithotripsy. J Clin Surg. 21:802–803. 2013.
25	He J: Comparison of the clinical efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopy for the treatment of renal calculi. Med Aesthetics Cosmetol. 6972015.
26	Yang S, Song C, Liu L, et al: Management of renal calculi: Retrograde ureteroscopic holminum laser versus percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. Chin J Urol. 34:666–669. 2013.
27	Kruck S, Anastasiadis AG, Herrmann TR, Walcher U, Abdelhafez MF, Nicklas AP, Hölzle L, Schilling D, Bedke J, Stenzl A and Nagele U: Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: An alternative to retrograde intrarenal surgery and shockwave lithotripsy. World J Urol. 31:1555–1561. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
28	Resorlu B, Unsal A, Ziypak T, Diri A, Atis G, Guven S, Sancaktutar AA, Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF and Oztuna D: Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery, shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of medium-sized radiolucent renal stones. World J Urol. 31:1581–1586. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Chung BI, Aron M, Hegarty NJ and Desai MM: Ureteroscopic versus percutaneous treatment for medium-size (1–2-cm) renal calculi. J Endourol. 22:343–346. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
30	Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, D'A Honey RJ and Pace KT: A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: Are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol. 25:481–485. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
31	Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y, Can CE and Unsal A: Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol. 25:1131–1135. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
32	Tiselius HG, Alken P and Buck C: Guidelines on urolithiasis. http://www.uroweb.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Guidelines/Urolithiasis.pdf2010
33	Mariani AJ: Combined electrohydraulic and holmium:YAG laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy of large (greater than 4 cm) renal calculi. J Urol. 177:168–173. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Hyams ES, Munver R, Bird VG, Uberoi J and Shah O: Flexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2 to 3 cm: A multi-institutional experience. J Endourol. 24:1583–1588. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	El-Anany FG, Hammouda HM, Maghraby HA and Elakkad MA: Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal calculi. BJU Int. 88:850–853. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
36	Grasso M, Conlin M and Bagley D: Retrograde ureteropyeloscopic treatment of 2 cm. or greater upper urinary tract and minor Staghorn calculi. J Urol. 160:346–351. 1998. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
37	Riley JM, Stearman L and Troxel S: Retrograde ureteroscopy for renal stones larger than 2.5 cm. J Endourol. 23:1395–1398. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
38	Mariani AJ: Combined electrohydraulic and holmium:yag laser ureteroscopic nephrolithotripsy for 20 to 40 mm renal calculi. J Urol. 172:170–174. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
39	Breda A, Ogunyemi O, Leppert JT and Schulam PG: Flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for multiple unilateral intrarenal stones. Eur Urol. 55:1190–1196. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
40	Smith R, Khoubehi B and Fuchs G: Occlusion of the lower calyx by autologuos blood prevents accumulation of stone fragments at this site after retrograde intra-renal surgery. Eur Urol. (Suppl 264):2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
41	Akman T, Binbay M, Sari E, Yuruk E, Tepeler A, Akcay M, Muslumanoglu AY and Tefekli A: Factors affecting bleeding during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Single surgeon experience. J Endourol. 25:327–333. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
42	Kukreja R and Desai M, Patel S, Bapat S and Desai M: Factors affecting blood loss during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Prospective study. J Endourol. 18:715–722. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
43	Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ, Williams HJ Jr, Barrett DM, Benson RC Jr, May GR and Bender CE: Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: Review of 1,000 cases. J Urol. 134:1077–1081. 1985. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
44	Stoller ML, Wolf JS Jr and St Lezin MA: Estimated blood loss and transfusion rates associated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol. 152:1977–1981. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
45	Liatsikos EN, Kapoor R, Lee B, Jabbour M, Barbalias G and Smith AD: ‘Angular percutaneous renal access’. Multiple tracts through a single incision for staghorn calculous treatment in a single session. Eur Urol. 48:832–837. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
46	Takazawa R, Kitayama S and Tsujii T: Successful outcome of flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy for renal stones 2 cm or greater. Int J Urol. 19:264–267. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI