Superior calyceal access vs. other calyceal access in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the superior calyceal access’s performance and safety in relation to other calyceal access during percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).MethodsThe suggested reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis were used to conduct this meta-analysis (PRISMA). To find pertinent studies for this meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Operation time and hospital stay are two secondary outcomes, whereas failed stone clearance and complication events are the two major outcomes. Utilizing Stata 15.0, RevMan 5.3, and R 4.0.2, relative data were extracted and evaluated.ResultsThis meta-analysis was based on 16 studies with 8,541 individuals. Pooled results suggested that superior calyceal access could offer fewer failed stone clearance [odds ratio (OR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.47–0.88, P = 0.006] and lower additional puncture rate (OR: 0.35, 95% CI, 0.24–0.51, P < 0.001) than other calyceal access. No complication difference was found (OR: 1.10, 95% CI, 0.78–1.56, P = 0.57). Superior calyceal access could offer shorter operation time [standard mean difference (SMD): −0.57, 95% CI, −0.98 to −0.15, P = 0.007]. No hospital stay difference was found (SMD: 0.07, 95% CI, −0.09 to 0.22, P = 0.38). Large heterogeneity was detected in stone clearance comparison (I2 = 71%, P < 0.001) and operation time (I2 = 97%, P < 0.001). The stone clearance comparison also identified significant publication bias (P = 0.026). These defects weaken the credibility of the results.ConclusionSuperior calyceal access in PCNL may result in a higher stone clearance rate, a lower rate of subsequent punctures, and a faster operation duration with no increase in postoperative complications or hospital stay for kidney stone patients, despite the significant heterogeneity and publication bias. By conducting bigger randomized controlled studies, this discovery still has to be confirmed.

Influence of tract location on the outcomes of endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery: A retrospective analysis of 1000 cases

“…Ma et al. conducted a systematic review of 16 studies with 8541 patients to evaluate the effect and safety of placing tracts in the upper calyx during PCNL and concluded that upper calyceal access has better stone clearance and lower additional puncture rates without increasing complications 14 . However, evidence regarding the tract location during ECIRS is limited.…”

“…10 Ma et al conducted a systematic review of 16 studies with 8541 patients to evaluate the effect and safety of placing tracts in the upper calyx during PCNL and concluded that upper calyceal access has better stone clearance and lower additional puncture rates without increasing complications. 14 However, evidence regarding the tract location during ECIRS is limited. Large stones in multiple calyces still pose a challenge in achieving stone-free status, 6 although the importance of tract location may be reduced with the use of f-URS compared with PCNL.…”

“…6 To improve the SFR, choosing a calyx where the tract is placed is considered as the most important issue in ECIRS, as in PCNL. Although several studies on this subject have been conducted in PCNL, [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] little is known about this in ECIRS.…”