Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery and Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Renal Stones Less Than 2 cm in Maximum Diameter

PURPOSE: The aim of the current systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an answer on which is the most appropriate approach for the management of the lower pole stones with a maximal dimension of 2 cm or less. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on PubMed®, SCOPUS®, Cochrane and EMBASE®. The PRISMA guidelines and the recommendations of the EAU Guidelines office were followed. Retrograde intrarenal surgery, shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy were considered for comparison. The primary end point was the stone-free rate. RESULTS: A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were eligible. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery have higher stone-free rates in comparison to shock wave lithotripsy and require fewer re-treatment sessions. Operative time and complications seem to favor shock wave lithotripsy in comparison to percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, but this takes place at the expense of multiple shock wave lithotripsy sessions. Retrograde intrarenal surgery seems to be the most efficient approach for the management of stones up to 1 cm in the lower pole. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled analysis of the eligible studies showed that the management of lower pole stones should probably be percutaneous nephrolithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery to achieve stone-free status over a short period and minimal number of sessions. For stones smaller than 10 mm, retrograde intrarenal surgery is more efficient in comparison to shock wave lithotripsy. The decision between the 2 approaches (percutaneous nephrolithotripsy or retrograde intrarenal surgery) should be individual, based on the anatomical parameters, the comorbidity and the preferences of each patient

Endourological management (URS) of stones in solitary kidney : a systematic review from European Association of Urologists (EAU) Young Academic Urologists (YAU) and Uro-Technology (ESUT) groups

C

Endourologic Management (PCNL, URS, SWL) of Stones in Solitary Kidney: A Systematic Review from European Association of Urologists Young Academic Urologists and Uro-Technology Groups

Introduction: Urolithiasis in solitary kidney (SK) presents significant management dilemma as any insult to the kidney or its drainage can lead to significant morbidity. The treatment options include shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and ureteroscopy (URS). Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of literature on all available endourologic techniques reporting on the management of stones in an SK. Materials and Methods: We conducted a systematic review according to the Cochrane and PRISMA checklist for all English-language articles from inception to December 2018. All studies with a minimum of 10 patients that reported on endourologic management (SWL, PCNL, or URS) were included. Data were extracted for patient and stone demographics, outcomes including stone-free rate (SFR), adverse events, and renal function. Results: After an initial search of 553 articles, 27 were included for the final review (10 PCNL, 1 mini-PCNL, 9 URS, 1 SWL, and 6 comparative studies). The choice of treatment seemed to be based on stone size, with PCNL, URS, and SWL offered for mean stone sizes between 25-50, 10-28, and 12-15 mm, respectively. PCNL, URS, and SWL were reported in 1445, 792, and 186 patients, respectively, with a final SFR of 67%-97.7%, 43%-100%, and 73%-80% and a complication rate of 26.4%, 15%, and 16.7% across the three groups. The renal function deterioration was reported in 4/16 PCNL studies and in 1/15 URS studies, while it remained unaffected in the SWL study. Conclusions: Our review shows a rise of endourologic techniques in the management of stones in SK. Although PCNL was used for larger stones, it had a higher risk of major complications, including blood transfusion. While a good SFR was obtained for patients irrespective of the treatment modality, the selected intervention needs to be balanced with its safety profile and the need for ancillary procedures. © 2020, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc