Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in the management of renal stones: A meta-analysis

• Published in: Experimental and therapeutic medicine Vol. 18; no. 2; pp. 1366 - 1374
• Main Authors: Zhu, Ming, Wang, Xiaoyi, Shi, Zhanqin, Ding, Min, Fan, Deyong, Wang, Xiang, Jiang, Rui
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Greece Spandidos Publications 01-08-2019; Spandidos Publications UK Ltd; D.A. Spandidos
• Subjects: Care and treatment; Comparative analysis; Kidney diseases; Kidney stones; Medical research; Meta-analysis; Quality; Standard deviation; Studies; Surgery; United States > US; meta-analysis; percutaneous nephrolithotripsy; retrograde intrarenal surgery; renal stones
• ISSN: 1792-0981; 1792-1015
• DOI: 10.3892/etm.2019.7710

Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) is recommended as the first-line treatment for the management of kidney stones that are ≥2 cm in diameter. Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become increasingly preferred due to its high level of safety and repeatability, particularly in small stones. However, whether PCNL has superior efficacy and lower complication rates when compared with RIRS remains controversial. Therefore, the present meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated with PCNL and RIRS as therapy for renal stones. Clinical trials published in PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) were systematically reviewed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of patients with renal stones who were treated with PCNL or RIRS. Main outcomes measures included stone-free rate, operative time, hospital stay, and complication rate. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR), or weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled estimates were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model according to the heterogeneity among the studies. In total, 17 studies [4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 13 cohort studies] involving 1,717 patients met the inclusion criteria, and were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled results showed that PCNL exhibited a significantly higher stone-free rate (RR=0.90, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.95; P<0.001) but was associated with a longer hospital stay, when compared with RIRS (WMD=-2.72, 95% CI: -3.9 to -1.54; P<0.001). Operative time (WMD=7.86, 95% CI: -0.89 to 16.61; P=0.078) and complication rate (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.05; P=0.083) did not significantly differ between the groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that PCNL had a shorter operation time than RIRS in patients with stone sizes ≥2 cm (WMD=12.88, 95% CI: 4.77 to 20.99; P=0.002), and PCNL had a similar stone-free rate as RIRS when the estimates were pooled from RCTs (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.01; P=0.078). Compared with PCNL, RIRS had a significantly lower stone-free rate, shorter hospital stay, but a similar operation time and complication rate. Therefore, we propose that RIRS may be an alternative therapy to PCNL, with acceptable efficacy and complication rates for renal stones. Further large-scale, well-conducted RCTs are required to verify our findings.