Back

Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy as imaging guidance for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Arabzadeh Bahri, R.; Maleki, S.; Shafiee, A.; Shobeiri, P.

2022-10-13 urology
10.1101/2022.10.13.22281046 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesTo determine whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UG-PCNL), an alternative to traditional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FG-PCNL), are comparable. MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to discover investigations comparing UG-PCNL to FG-PCNL, and accordingly, a meta-analysis of those studies was performed. The primary outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR), overall complications based on Clavien-Dindo classification, duration of surgery, duration of patients hospitalization, and hemoglobin (Hb) drop during the surgery. All statistical analyses and visualizations were implemented utilizing R software. ResultsNineteen studies, including eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and eleven observational cohorts, comprising 3016 patients (1521 UG-PCNL patients) and comparing UG-PCNL with FG-PCNL met the inclusion criteria of the current study. Considering SFR, overall complications, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and Hb drop, our meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients, with p-values of 0.29, 0.47, 0.98, 0.28, and 0.42, respectively. Significant differences were discovered between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients in terms of the length of time they were exposed to radiation (p-value< 0.0001). Moreover, FG-PCNL had shorter access time than UG-PCNL (p-value= 0.04). ConclusionUG-PCNL provides the advantage of requiring less radiation exposure while being just as efficient as FG-PCNL; thus, this study suggests prioritizing the use of UG-PCNL.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.