Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Access: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Access by Urologist vs Radiologist

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a minimally invasive procedure indicated for the management of staghorn calculi or renal calculi >2.0 cm. Percutaneous renal access is a critical step in this procedure and can be performed by either urologists or interventional radiologists. The purpose of this st...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endourology 2023-01, Vol.37 (1), p.8-14
Hauptverfasser: Ghoulian, Joshua, Nourian, Alex, Dalimov, Zafardjan, Ghiraldi, Eric M, Friedlander, Justin I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a minimally invasive procedure indicated for the management of staghorn calculi or renal calculi >2.0 cm. Percutaneous renal access is a critical step in this procedure and can be performed by either urologists or interventional radiologists. The purpose of this study is to perform a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between urologist and interventional radiologist-mediated access. An electronic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing urologist- and interventional radiologist-acquired access. Studies must have included both urologist- and intervention radiologist-acquired access data but were excluded if (1) not in English; (2) abstract without full text; (3) unable to determine who acquired access; and (4) only included either urologist or interventional radiologist data. Meta-analysis comparison was generated with the Review Manager 5.4 software. After screening the abstracts and title, 55 relevant studies were identified. Nine articles were utilized in the meta-analysis. Urologist-acquired access was associated with a greater stone-free rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.20), a reduction in major complications (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92), and a shorter hospital stay (mean difference -0.40; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.16) in comparison with radiologist-acquired access. Urologist-acquired access was associated with greater blood loss (mean difference 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60) when compared with interventional radiology-acquired access. No significant differences were found with regard to unusable access, multiple tracts, supracostal access, ancillary procedure requirement, operative time, minor complications, and transfusions. Urologist-acquired access may be associated with a higher stone-free rate and a reduction in major complications, whereas interventional radiologist-mediated access may be associated with a reduction in blood loss, despite similar transfusion rates.
ISSN:0892-7790
1557-900X
DOI:10.1089/end.2022.0308