• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel

Y. Ruhayel, A. Tepeler, S. Dabestani, S. MacLennan, A. Petřík, K. Sarica, C. Seitz, A. Skolarikos, M. Straub, C. Türk, Y. Yuan, T. Knoll,

. 2017 ; 72 (2) : 220-235. [pub] 20170223

Jazyk angličtina Země Švýcarsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, přehledy

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc18025145

CONTEXT: Miniaturized instruments for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), utilizing tracts sized ≤22 Fr, have been developed in an effort to reduce the morbidity and increase the efficiency of stone removal compared with standard PNL (>22 Fr). OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of miniaturized PNL for removing renal calculi. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Since it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, the data were summarized in a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 2945 abstracts, 18 studies were included (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], six nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 case series). Thirteen studies were full-text articles and five were only available as congress abstracts. The size of tracts used in miniaturized procedures ranged from 22 Fr to 4.8 Fr. The largest mean stone size treated using small instruments was 980mm2. Stone-free rates were comparable in miniaturized and standard PNL procedures. Procedures performed with small instruments tended to be associated with significantly lower blood loss, while the procedure duration tended to be significantly longer. Other complications were not notably different between PNL types. Study designs and populations were heterogeneous. Study limitations included selection and outcome reporting bias, as well as a lack of information on relevant confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The studies suggest that miniaturized PNL is at least as efficacious and safe as standard PNL for the removal of renal calculi. However, the quality of the evidence was poor, drawn mainly from small studies, the majority of which were single-arm case series, and only two of which were RCTs. Furthermore, the tract sizes used and types of stones treated were heterogeneous. Hence, the risks of bias and confounding were high, highlighting the need for more reliable data from RCTs. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removing kidney stones via percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using smaller sized instruments (mini-PNL) appears to be as effective and safe as using larger (traditional) instruments, but more clinical research is needed.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18025145
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20180710095258.0
007      
ta
008      
180709s2017 sz f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.01.046 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28237786
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a sz
100    1_
$a Ruhayel, Yasir $u Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
245    10
$a Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel / $c Y. Ruhayel, A. Tepeler, S. Dabestani, S. MacLennan, A. Petřík, K. Sarica, C. Seitz, A. Skolarikos, M. Straub, C. Türk, Y. Yuan, T. Knoll,
520    9_
$a CONTEXT: Miniaturized instruments for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), utilizing tracts sized ≤22 Fr, have been developed in an effort to reduce the morbidity and increase the efficiency of stone removal compared with standard PNL (>22 Fr). OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of miniaturized PNL for removing renal calculi. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Since it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, the data were summarized in a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 2945 abstracts, 18 studies were included (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], six nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 case series). Thirteen studies were full-text articles and five were only available as congress abstracts. The size of tracts used in miniaturized procedures ranged from 22 Fr to 4.8 Fr. The largest mean stone size treated using small instruments was 980mm2. Stone-free rates were comparable in miniaturized and standard PNL procedures. Procedures performed with small instruments tended to be associated with significantly lower blood loss, while the procedure duration tended to be significantly longer. Other complications were not notably different between PNL types. Study designs and populations were heterogeneous. Study limitations included selection and outcome reporting bias, as well as a lack of information on relevant confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The studies suggest that miniaturized PNL is at least as efficacious and safe as standard PNL for the removal of renal calculi. However, the quality of the evidence was poor, drawn mainly from small studies, the majority of which were single-arm case series, and only two of which were RCTs. Furthermore, the tract sizes used and types of stones treated were heterogeneous. Hence, the risks of bias and confounding were high, highlighting the need for more reliable data from RCTs. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removing kidney stones via percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using smaller sized instruments (mini-PNL) appears to be as effective and safe as using larger (traditional) instruments, but more clinical research is needed.
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    _2
$a předškolní dítě $7 D002675
650    _2
$a design vybavení $7 D004867
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a dodržování směrnic $7 D019983
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a kojenec $7 D007223
650    _2
$a ledvinové kameny $x diagnóza $x chirurgie $7 D007669
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a miniaturizace $7 D008904
650    _2
$a perkutánní nefrolitotomie $x škodlivé účinky $x přístrojové vybavení $x normy $7 D000074642
650    12
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $x normy $7 D017410
650    12
$a společnosti lékařské $x normy $7 D012955
650    12
$a chirurgické nástroje $x normy $7 D013525
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a urologie $x normy $7 D014572
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a přehledy $7 D016454
700    1_
$a Tepeler, Abdulkadir $u Department of Urology, Sen Jorj Austria Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
700    1_
$a Dabestani, Saeed $u Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden.
700    1_
$a MacLennan, Steven $u Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
700    1_
$a Petřík, Aleš $u Department of Urology, Region Hospital, České Budějovice, Czech Republic; Department of Urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Sarica, Kemal $u Department of Urology, Dr. Lutfi Kirdar Kartal Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
700    1_
$a Seitz, Christian $u Department of Urology, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Skolarikos, Andreas $u Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
700    1_
$a Straub, Michael $u Department of Urology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
700    1_
$a Türk, Christian $u Department of Urology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Yuan, Yuhong $u Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
700    1_
$a Knoll, Thomas $u Department of Urology, Sindelfingen-Boeblingen Medical Center, University of Tübingen, Sindelfingen, Germany. Electronic address: t.knoll@klinikverbund-suedwest.de.
773    0_
$w MED00001669 $t European urology $x 1873-7560 $g Roč. 72, č. 2 (2017), s. 220-235
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28237786 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20180709 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20180710095548 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1317276 $s 1022066
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 72 $c 2 $d 220-235 $e 20170223 $i 1873-7560 $m European urology $n Eur Urol $x MED00001669
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20180709

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace