| Title |
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for pediatric patients with upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Urolithiasis, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00240-018-1039-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yiwen Chen, Tuo Deng, Xiaolu Duan, Wei Zhu, Guohua Zeng |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in surgical treatment of pediatric patients with upper urinary stones based on the published literature. A comprehensive literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and CNKI was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of PCNL and RIRS for treating pediatric patients with upper urinary stones before May 2017. A total of 11 studies, including one randomized controlled trial, four retrospective case-control studies and six case series studies, containing 822 children with upper urinary stones were included in this systematic review. Five of 11 including studies, containing 474 children with upper urinary stones were included in a meta-analysis. Significantly shorter hospital stay and fluoroscopy time were needed by RIRS than PCNL (WMD: 1.44 days, 95% CI 0.85, 2.04; p < 0.00001) and (WMD: 72.72 s, 95% CI 52.13, 93.31; p < 0.00001). The overall complications were higher for PCNL compared with RIRS (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02, 2.84; p = 0.04). However, the minor (Clavien I or II) and major (Clavien III-V) complications rates in the PCNL group were higher compared with RIRS group but the differences were not statistically significant, respectively (p > 0.05). RIRS also benefits from significantly less need for blood transfusion (OR 9.09, 95% CI 1.66, 49.78; p = 0.01). No significant differences were found in initial, final stone-free rate, and operative times (p > 0.05). Our analysis suggested that RIRS turns out to be a safe and feasible procedure alternative to PCNL for children with upper urinary stones in selected cases. Because of the inherent limitations of the included studies, further large sample, prospective, multi-centric and randomized control trials should be undertaken to confirm our findings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 50 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 36% |
| Unspecified | 8 | 16% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 21 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,376,243
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#193
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,728
of 441,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#5
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,268 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.