1829 Laser Lithotripsy Versus Eswl for Lower Calyceal Renal Stones

Super‐mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower‐pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial

“…The primary endpoint was the SFR at 3‐months after surgery. Stone‐free status was defined as no residual fragments of ≥0.3 cm on plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder (KUB) and ultrasonography at 1‐day and CT at 3‐months after operation . Secondary endpoints included haemoglobin decrease, transfusion rate, operating time, postoperative pain, auxiliary procedures, hospital stay, and complications (using the Clavien–Dindo grading system ).…”

Comparative effectiveness and safety of various treatment procedures for lower pole renal calculi: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis

“…In all, 130 studies were identified and 13 studies [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] fulfilled the inclusion criteria ( Fig. 1 and Table 1).…”

“…In all, 10 publications were full articles [16,17,[20][21][22][23][24][26][27][28] and three were conference abstracts [18,19,25]. SWL was the most commonly used referent method, with six studies comparing the effects vs SWL with the addition of adjuvant therapy [17,[20][21][22][23]27], four studies compared it with URS [18,[24][25][26] and two studies compared it with PNL [16,28]. One study compared PNL with URS [19].…”

“…In all, 1 091 renal units were included in the present review, with 514 lower pole stones treated with SWL alone, 236 treated with SWL and an adjuvant therapy, 238 with URS, and 103 with PNL. Seven studies were from Asia [17,18,20,[25][26][27][28], five from North America [16,19,[22][23][24] and one from Europe [21]. There was substantial divergence between studies for the methods to determine SFR; the most common method was X-ray of the kidney, ureter and bladder (KUB) [17,[20][21][22][25][26][27], while four studies used CT [19,23,24,28] and one study used nephrostogram [16].…”

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Clinical Effectiveness of Shock Wave Lithotripsy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy for Lower-pole Renal Stones

“…Meta-analysis was only possible for the outcome of SFR for PNL vs. SWL and RIRS vs. SWL (Figure 1) because of clinical heterogeneity.Overall (≤20mm) median SFRs favoured PNL (96.3%) over RIRS (91.7%), and over SWL (54.5%) (Supplement 3). No studies reported economic outcomes.Five RCTs compared RIRS vs. SWL[5][6][7][8][9]. Meta-analysis showed higher SFR for RIRS (89.5% vs. 70.5%).…”