Urology Journal

ISSN: 1735-1308

Instant 2021

Suctioning Versus Traditional Access Sheath in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Urology Journal, , 23 February 2021 , Page 6773
https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6773

Abstract

Purpose: The suctioning access sheath (SAS) is a novel access sheath connected to a negative pressure suction device and absorbs fragments. Some comparative studies have reported SAS with a higher stone-free rate and lower operative time. However, no higher-level evidence was published to support SAS. Hence, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical safety and efficacy of SAS versus traditional access sheath (TAS) for treatment of renal stones in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL).


Materials and Methods: A systematic review of literature was conducted using Pubmed, Embase(Ovid), Medline（EBSCO）, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, and Sinomed to search comparative studies as recent as December 2020 that assessed the safety and effectiveness of SAS in PCNL. The quality of retrospective case-control studies (RCCs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. The Oxford center set up evidence-based medicine was used to assess the level of evidence (LE). Statistical analyses were performed by the comprehensive meta-analysis program.


Results: Seven studies, a total of 1655 patients, were included. Compared with the TAS group, the SAS group had a shorter operative time (MD= -17.30; 95%CI:-23.09,-11.51;P＜.00001), higher stone-free rate (OR=2.37;95%CI:1.56,3.61;P<.0001),fewer total complication rate (OR=0.50;95%CI:0.35,0.70;P<.0001), lower auxiliary procedures rate  (OR=0.48;95%CI:0.36,0.64;P<.00001), and lower postoperative fever rate (OR=0.46;95%CI:0.34,0.62;P＜.00001).


Conclusion: The SAS can significantly improve MPCNL in the stone-free rate, operative time, and total complication rate, especially for auxiliary procedures and postoperative fever rates.

Keywords:
  • suctioning access sheath; percutaneous nephrolithotomy; meta-analysis; PCNL; renal calculi

How to Cite

chen, D., chen, C., Xie, Y., Luo, Z., & Liu, G. (2021). Suctioning Versus Traditional Access Sheath in Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Urology Journal, 18, 6773. https://doi.org/10.22037/uj.v18i.6773

References

1. Wilkinson H. Clinical investigation and management of patients with renal stones. Ann Clin Biochem. 2001;38:180-7.
2. Viljoen A, Chaudhry R, Bycroft J. Renal stones. Ann Clin Biochem. 2019;56:15-27.
3. Yang YH, Wen YC, Chen KC, Chen C. Ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2019;37:777-88.
4. Zhu W, Liu Y, Liu L, et al. Minimally invasive versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015;43:563-70.
5. Wu C, Hua LX, Zhang JZ, Zhou XR, Zhong W, Ni HD. Comparison of renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever incidence between standard- and mini-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2017;33:36-43.
6. Feng D, Zeng X, Han P, Wei X. Comparison of intrarenal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever between standard- and mini-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1159-66.
7. Lai D, Xu W, Chen M, et al. Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with a Novel Vacuum-assisted Access Sheath for obstructive calculous pyonephrosis ：A Randomized Study. Urol J. 2020;17:474-9.
8. Nottingham CU, Large T, Cobb K, et al. Initial Clinical Experience with Swiss LithoClast Trilogy During Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2020;34:151-5.
9. York NE, Borofsky MS, Chew BH, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Three Different Modalities of Lithotrites for Intracorporeal Lithotripsy in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2017;31:1145-51.
10. Zhu Z, Cui Y, Zeng H, et al. Suctioning versus traditional minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy to treat renal staghorn calculi: A case-matched comparative study. Int J Surg. 2019;72:85-90.
11. Huang J, Song L, Xie D, et al. A Randomized Study of Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) with the aid of a patented suctioning sheath in the treatment of renal calculus complicated by pyonephrosis by one surgery. BMC Urol. 2016;16:71.
12. Xu G, Liang J, He Y, et al. Comparison of two different minimally invasive percutaneous nephrostomy sheaths for the treatment of staghorn stones. BJU Int. 2020;125:898-904.
13. Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA, Flanigan DC. How to write a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42:2761-8.
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Bmj. 2009;339:b2700.
15. Kaefer M, Castagnetti M, Herbst K, et al. Evidence-based medicine III: level of evidence. J Pediatr Urol. 2019;15:407-8.
16. Norris JM, Simpson BS, Ball R, et al. A Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Assessment of Study Quality in Genetic Urological Research. Eur Urol. 2020.
17. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928.
18. Lai D, Chen M, Sheng M, et al. Use of a Novel Vacuum-Assisted Access Sheath in Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Feasibility Study. J Endourol. 2020;34:339-44.
19. Song L, Chen Z, Liu T, et al. The application of a patented system to minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol. 2011;25:1281-6.
20. Du C, Song L, Wu X, et al. Suctioning Minimally Invasive Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with a Patented System Is Effective to Treat Renal Staghorn Calculi: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Urol Int. 2018;101:143-9.
21. Omar M, Noble M, Sivalingam S, et al. Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome after Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Randomized Single-Blind Clinical Trial Evaluating the Impact of Irrigation Pressure. J Urol. 2016;196:109-14.
22. Zhu L, Jiang R, Pei L, Li X, Kong X, Wang X. Risk factors for the fever after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a retrospective analysis. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:1262-9.
23. Gökce M, Karaburun MC, Babayiğit M, et al. Effect of Active Aspiration and Sheath Location on Intrapelvic Pressure During Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2021.
24. Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL, et al. Natural History, Complications and Re-Intervention Rates of Asymptomatic Residual Stone Fragments after Ureteroscopy: a Report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2016;195:982-6.
25. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, et al. EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69:475-82.
26. Singh AK, Shukla PK, Khan SW, Rathee VS, Dwivedi US, Trivedi S. Using the Modified Clavien Grading System to Classify Complications of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Curr Urol. 2018;11:79-84.
27. Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K, Li X, Chen W, Yang H. Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy contribute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol. 2008;22:2147-51.
  • Abstract Viewed: 0 times
  • Just Accepted/6773 Downloaded: 0 times

Download Statastics

In case of persistent problems in registration, primary uploading of a submission or uploading of a revision, please send us the submission files on the journal email at:

urologyjournal@sbmu.ac.ir

and please attach the screenshot of the error or problem you encountered in uploading.

 

Make a Submission
Information
Keywords