Real-time simultaneous endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with intermediate-supine position: Washout mechanism and transport technique

Jung, Hae Do; Kim, Jong Chan; Ahn, Hyun Kyu; Kwon, Joon Ho; Han, Woong Kyu; Kim, Man Deuk; Lee, Joo Yong

doi:10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.348

Cited by 30 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PCNL and RIRS should be the mainstay of interventional therapy for patients with renal stones. However, for some patients with bilateral disease, ECIRS may also be an effective treatment rather than bilateral PCNL or RIRS [75, 76]. Although PCNL is the most effect interventional therapy with the highest stone-free rate, careful patient selection is required because of the high invasiveness of this treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones. Materials and methods Clinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs). Results A total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22–0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067–0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20–0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873–8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043–2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348–4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3. Conclusions PCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In summary, PCNL is the most effective treatment, and RIRS is able to compensate for a lower stone-free rate than PCNL. For patients with a low stone-free rate in the recently presented nephrolithometry score [79], increasing the stone-free rate by using ECIRS should be the goal of interventional therapy in the future [76].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As minimally invasive technologies develop, percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) are the most commonly performed treatments for kidney stones [ 4 , 5 ]. The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis suggests various treatments by stone type and size [ 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: To perform a updated systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for treatment of renal stones (RS). Materials and Methods: A total of 37 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis about effectiveness to treat RS. Endpoints were stone-free rates (SFR), incidence of auxiliary procedure, retreatment, and complications. We also conducted a sub-analysis of ≥2 cm stones. Results: First, PCNL had the highest SFR than others regardless of stone sizes and RIRS showed a higher SFR than ESWL in <2 cm stones. Second, auxiliary procedures were higher in ESWL than others, and it did not differ between PCNL and RIRS. Finally, in <2 cm stones, the retreatment rate of ESWL was higher than others. RIRS required significantly more retreatment procedures than PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. Complication was higher in PCNL than others, but there was no statistically significant difference in complications between RIRS and PCNL in ≥2 cm stones. For ≥2 cm stones, PCNL had the highest SFR, and auxiliary procedures and retreatment rates were significantly lower than others. Conclusions: We suggest that PCNL is a safe and effective treatment, especially for large RS.

show abstract

“…The EAU guideline recommends ESWL and RIRS as rst-line treatments for kidney stones < 2 cm in diameter and PCNL as the rst-line treatment for stones > 2 cm [7]. As surgical procedures, PCNL and RIRS have an anesthetic burden and their invasiveness is a disadvantage, but the stone-free rates of PCNL and RIRS are higher than those of ESWL [49]. The development of surgical techniques and instruments continues to play a major role in the popularization of PCNL and RIRS [48,50].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the stone-free rates of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Kang¹,

Chung

Jeong

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are performed to treat renal stones. PCNL is effective for kidney stones >2 cm but is invasive compared with RIRS. Miniature PCNL (mPCNL) has been used as an alternative treatment for conventional PCNL, and employs a miniature endoscope of 11–18 Fr. We conducted a systematic review of published studies regarding the RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL treatment modalities, and performed a network meta-analysis of the success or stone-free rates.Methods: The data collected up to January 2016 were searched using PubMed and EMBASE, and references were searched electronically. Two researchers used data extraction formats to extract data on the stone-free or success rates, study design, number of subjects and characteristics, and treatments for renal stones (i.e., RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL). To evaluate the quality of the studies, the Downs and Black checklist, which is an observational research quality evaluation tool, was used and analyzed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement.Results: Twenty-five studies were used to compare the stone-free or success rates of RIRS, PCNL, and mPCNL for renal stones. Six comparisons of PCNL and mPCNL, seven of mPCNL and RIRS, and 12 of RIRS and PCNL were analyzed. No difference in the stone-free rate was found between PCNL and mPCNL (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.51–1.9) in network mata-analysis. Between RIRS and mPCNL, the stone-free rate of RIRS was lower than mPCNL (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.021–0.82). Comparison of RIRS and PCNL revealed that RIRS was also lower than PCNL in terms of stone-free rate (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22–0.82). In the ranking analysis, rankogram showed that mPCNL was ranked as No. 1 and PCNL was ranked as No. 2. The P-score was 0.820 for mPCNL, 0.680 for PCNL and 0 for RIRS.Conclusions: PCNL and mPCNL showed higher success or stone-free rates than RIRS for the treatment of renal stones. However, PCNL and mPCNL showed no difference in the treatment outcome.

show abstract

Real-time simultaneous endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery with intermediate-supine position: Washout mechanism and transport technique

Cited by 30 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the stone-free rates of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About