Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17794
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDavis, Niall F-
dc.contributor.authorQuinlan, Mark R-
dc.contributor.authorPoyet, C-
dc.contributor.authorLawrentschuk, Nathan-
dc.contributor.authorBolton, Damien M-
dc.contributor.authorWebb, D-
dc.contributor.authorJack, Gregory S-
dc.date2018-02-16-
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-28T06:13:48Z-
dc.date.available2018-05-28T06:13:48Z-
dc.date.issued2018-02-16-
dc.identifier.citationWorld Journal of Urology 2018; 36(7): 1127-1138-
dc.identifier.urihttp://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17794-
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes of mini-PCNL and FURS for treating urinary tract calculi in a single session. A systematic search using electronic databases was performed for studies comparing mini-PCNL and FURS for the treatment of urinary tract calculi. The primary outcome measurements were stone-free rates (SFRs) and complication rates for both techniques. Secondary outcome measurements were to compare patient demographics, operative duration, and inpatient stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.3 software. Sixteen studies on 1598 patients (n = 877 for mini-PCNL and n = 721 for FURS) met inclusion criteria. Demographics including age (p = 0.26), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.51), and gender ratio (p = 0.6), were similar in both groups. Overall, SFR was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 763/877, 89.3 ± 8.4% versus n = 559/721, 80.1 ± 13.3% [OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.53-2.64; p < 0.01]). Duration of inpatient stay was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 877, 4 ± 1.6 days versus n = 721, 2.5 ± 2.2 days, respectively [WMD: 1.77; 95% CI 1.16-2.38, p < 0.01]. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between mini-PCNL and FURS (n = 171/877, 19.5 ± 19.1% versus n = 112/721, 15.5 ± 18.9%, respectively [OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.85-2.4, p = 0.18]). Mini-PCNL is associated with greater SFRs and longer inpatient stay compared to FURS. Complication rates were similar for both techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of both technologies should be familiar to urologists and conveyed to patients prior to urological intervention for nephrolithiasis.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectFlexible pyeloscopy-
dc.subjectFlexible ureteropyeloscopy-
dc.subjectFlexible ureteroscopy-
dc.subjectMiniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy-
dc.subjectPercutaneous nephrolithotomy-
dc.titleMiniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleWorld Journal of Urology-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Urology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia-
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00345-018-2230-x-
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5145-6783-
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0001-8553-5618en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-5298-1475en
dc.identifier.pubmedid29450733-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
dc.type.austinReview-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

2
checked on Sep 3, 2021

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.