Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies.
Meta-analysis
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy
Renal stones
Single-probe dual-energy lithotripters
Systematic review
Journal
World journal of urology
ISSN: 1433-8726
Titre abrégé: World J Urol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8307716
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2023
Feb 2023
Historique:
received:
26
11
2022
accepted:
30
12
2022
pubmed:
20
1
2023
medline:
25
2
2023
entrez:
19
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631). We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53-2.38, I SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36656331
doi: 10.1007/s00345-023-04278-2
pii: 10.1007/s00345-023-04278-2
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
551-565Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Barone B, Crocetto F, Vitale R et al (2020) Retrograde intra renal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Urol Nefrol Ital J Urol Nephrol 72:441–450. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2
doi: 10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03721-2
Kallidonis P, Tsaturyan A, Lattarulo M, Liatsikos E (2020) Minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): techniques and outcomes. Turk J Urol 46:S58–S63. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2020.20161
doi: 10.5152/tud.2020.20161
pubmed: 32525477
pmcid: 7731950
Tzelves L, Skolarikos A (2020) Suction use during endourological procedures. Curr Urol Rep 21:46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-00998-9
doi: 10.1007/s11934-020-00998-9
pubmed: 32915324
Wollin DA, Lipkin ME (2019) Emerging technologies in ultrasonic and pneumatic lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am 46:207–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.006
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.12.006
pubmed: 30961854
Chew BH, Matteliano AA, de Los RT et al (2017) Benchtop and initial clinical evaluation of the shockpulse stone eliminator in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 31:191–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2016.0664
doi: 10.1089/end.2016.0664
pubmed: 27863458
Carlos EC, Wollin DA, Winship BB et al (2018) In vitro comparison of a novel single probe dual-energy lithotripter to current devices. J Endourol 32:534–540. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0143
doi: 10.1089/end.2018.0143
pubmed: 29649900
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJWV (eds) (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
pubmed: 31533922
pmcid: 6749182
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ Online. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
pubmed: 27737834
pmcid: 5063034
Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RBM et al (2014) SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 14:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43
pubmed: 24667063
pmcid: 4230647
Knoll T, Omar MI, Maclennan S et al (2018) Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the European Association of Urology. Eur Urol 73:290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016
pubmed: 28917594
Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 327:557–560
doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al (2008) GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad
doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad
pubmed: 18436948
pmcid: 2335261
Bader MJ, Eisel M, Strittmatter F et al (2021) Comparison of stone elimination capacity and drilling speed of endoscopic clearance lithotripsy devices. World J Urol 39:563–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03184-1
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03184-1
pubmed: 32277277
Khoder W, Strittmatter F, Alghamdi A et al (2020) Comparative evaluation of tissue damage induced by ultrasound and impact dual-mode endoscopic lithotripsy versus conventional single-mode ultrasound lithotripsy. World J Urol 38:1051–1058. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02747-1
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02747-1
pubmed: 31144092
Lattarulo M, Tsaturyan A, Adamou C et al (2021) Comparative evaluation between one ultrasonic and two single-probe dual-energy lithotripters: in vitro and in vivo experiment in a porcine model. J Endourol 35:1229–1235. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.1143
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1143
pubmed: 33573470
Strittmatter F, Nagele U, Schachtner J, Bader MJ (2021) Evaluation of intrarenal pressure stability at different lithotripter suction settings in a porcine kidney model. World J Urol 39:3665–3670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03679-5
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03679-5
pubmed: 33774719
Chong J, Magnan B, Dunne M, Davalos J (2020) Mp22-10 is newer better? treatment efficacy for lithoclast select versus lithoclast trilogy. J Urol 203:e331. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000855.010
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000855.010
Dunne MM, Abbott JE, Davalos JG (2019) Initial in vivo experience with a novel single probe dual energy lithotriptor. J Endourol 33:A285. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.29064.abstracts
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.29064.abstracts
Giusti G, Chiarissi ML, Caria N et al (2019) SC244—the shockpulse-seTM, a new lithotripsy system by olympus. Evaluation of its efficacy in comparison to the lithoclast master
doi: 10.1016/S1569-9056(19)33724-8
Large T, Nottingham C, Brinkman E et al (2021) Multi-institutional prospective randomized control trial of novel intracorporeal lithotripters: shock pulse-SE vs trilogy trial. J Endourol 35:1326–1332. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2020.1097
doi: 10.1089/end.2020.1097
pubmed: 33843245
pmcid: 8558064
Nottingham CU, Large T, Cobb K et al (2020) Initial clinical experience with Swiss lithoclast trilogy during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 34:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2019.0561
doi: 10.1089/end.2019.0561
pubmed: 31588790
Patil A, Sharma R, Shah D et al (2022) A prospective comparative study of mini-PCNL using Trilogy™ or thulium fibre laser with suction. World J Urol 40:539–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03881-5
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03881-5
pubmed: 34839407
Sabnis RB, Balaji SS, Sonawane PL et al (2020) EMS Lithoclast Trilogy™: an effective single-probe dual-energy lithotripter for mini and standard PCNL. World J Urol 38:1043–1050. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02843-2
doi: 10.1007/s00345-019-02843-2
pubmed: 31177306
Thakare N, Tanase F, Saeb-Parsy K et al (2021) Efficacy and safety of the EMS Swiss LithoClast® Trilogy for PCNL: results of the European multicentre prospective study on behalf of European Section of UroTechnology. World J Urol 39:4247–4253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03710-9
doi: 10.1007/s00345-021-03710-9
pubmed: 33991214
pmcid: 8122211
Timm B, Farag M, Davis NF et al (2021) Stone clearance times with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of a 1.5 mm ballistic/ultrasonic mini-probe vs. laser. Can Urol Assoc J J Assoc Urol Can 15:E17–E21. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.6513
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.6513
Yadav BK, Basnet RB, Shrestha A, Shrestha PM (2021) Comparison between shockpulse and pneumatic lithotripsy in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 39:915–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03239-3
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03239-3
pubmed: 32448972
Byrne MHV, Dragos L, Winterbottom A et al (2020) Percutaneous cystolitholapaxy using the LithoClast trilogy for multiple bladder stones. J Endourol Case Rep 6:118–120. https://doi.org/10.1089/cren.2019.0143
doi: 10.1089/cren.2019.0143
pubmed: 33102704
pmcid: 7580603
Sninsky BC, Flamiatos JF, Nakada SY (2019) The end of “Cutting for Stone”? Using the lithoclast trilogy for cystolitholapaxy on a 4 cm bladder stone per urethra. Urol Case Rep 26:100964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eucr.2019.100964
doi: 10.1016/j.eucr.2019.100964
pubmed: 31338304
pmcid: 6630028