Micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacy and safety of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (Microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in treating renal stones using published literature. METHODS:A systematic literature review was performed on August 21, 2017, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Summarized mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the differences in outcomes between Microperc and RIRS. RESULTS:A total of nine studies (7 in adult patients and 2 in pediatric patients) containing 842 patients (381 Microperc cases and 461 RIRS cases) with renal stones were included in this analysis. Among the adult patients, Microperc was associated with higher stone-free rate(SFR)(OR: 1.6; 95% CI, 1.03 to 2.48), significantly longer hospital stays (MD: 0.66 day; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.15), longer fluoroscopy time (MD: 78.12 s; 95% CI, 66.08 to 90.15), and larger decreases in hemoglobin (MD: 0.59 g/dl; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.02) than was RIRS. No significant differences were observed with respect to operative time, stone-free rate, complication rate or auxiliary procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Our results demonstrated that Microperc might be more effective in adult patients than RIRS will due to its higher SFR. However, longer hospital stays, longer fluoroscopy time and a larger decrease in hemoglobin should be considered cautiously

Systematic analyses of the factors influencing sperm quality in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Abstract To figure out how does SARS-CoV-2 affect sperm parameters and what influencing factors affect the recovery of sperm quality after infection? We conducted a prospective cohort study and initially included 122 men with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The longest time to track semen quality after infection is 112 days and 58 eligible patients were included in our study eventually. We subsequently exploited a linear mixed-effects model to statistically analyze their semen parameters at different time points before and after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Semen parameters were significantly reduced after SARS-CoV-2 infection, including total sperm count (211 [147; 347] to 167 [65.0; 258], P < 0.001), sperm concentration (69.0 [38.8; 97.0] to 51.0 [25.5; 71.5], P < 0.001), total sperm motility (57.5 [52.3; 65.0] to 51.0 [38.5; 56.8], P < 0.001), progressive motility (50.0 [46.2; 58.0] to 45.0 [31.5; 52.8], P < 0.001). The parameters displayed the greatest diminution within 30 days after SARS-CoV-2 infection, gradually recovered thereafter, and exhibited no significant difference after 90 days compared with prior to COVID-19 infection. In addition, the patients in the group with a low-grade fever showed a declining tendency in semen parameters, but not to a significant degree, whereas those men with a moderate or high fever produced a significant drop in the same parameters. Semen parameters were significantly reduced after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and fever severity during SARS-CoV-2 infection may constitute the main influencing factor in reducing semen parameters in patients after recovery, but the effect is reversible and the semen parameters gradually return to normal with the realization of a new spermatogenic cycle