Litotripsia extracorpórea por ondas de choque (LEOCh) versus nefrolitotomía percutánea (NLPC) o cirugía intrarrenal retrógrada (CIRR) para los cálculos renales
Información
- DOI:
- https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3Copiar DOI
- Base de datos:
-
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Versión publicada:
-
- 24 noviembre 2014see what's new
- Tipo:
-
- Intervention
- Etapa:
-
- Review
- Grupo Editorial Cochrane:
-
Grupo Cochrane de Riñón y trasplante
- Copyright:
-
- Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Cifras del artículo
Altmetric:
Citado por:
Autores
Contributions of authors
-
Writing of protocol and review: AS, SP, BL, VS, ML
-
Screening of titles and abstracts: AS, SP, VS
-
Assessment for inclusion: BL, VS
-
Risk of bias assessment: AS, SP
-
Data extraction: AS, SP
-
Data entry into RevMan: ML
-
Data analysis: ML
Sources of support
Internal sources
-
Department of Medical Services, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand.
-
Faculty of Medicine, Chiangmai University, Thailand.
-
Department of Surgery, Lerdsin Hospital, Thailand.
-
Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
External sources
-
Thailand Research Fund (Senior Research Scholar), Thailand.
Declarations of interest
None known.
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our sincere thanks to the Thai Cochrane Collaboration for their continued support and suggestions. Our great appreciation also goes to the referees who helped us during the preparation of this review. In addition, we are grateful to Professor Dr Wachira Kochakan for his kind advice.
Version history
| Published | Title | Stage | Authors | Version |
| 2023 Aug 01 | Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones | Review | Vasun Setthawong, Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Porjai Pattanittum | |
| 2014 Nov 24 | Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones | Review | Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Vasun Setthawong, Malinee Laopaiboon | |
| 2009 Oct 07 | Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones | Review | Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Vasun Setthawong, Malinee Laopaiboon | |
| 2009 Jul 08 | Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for kidney stones | Protocol | Attasit Srisubat, Somkiat Potisat, Bannakij Lojanapiwat, Vasun Setthawong, Malinee Laopaiboon | |
Differences between protocol and review
With the introduction of RevMan 5 and the new risk of bias assessment criteria, the quality items that we assessed were different from those stated in the protocol. Sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of follow‐up and selective reporting were used to assess study quality. Quality of life data and cost‐effectiveness of the interventions were included in the update review.
Keywords
MeSH
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) Keywords
Medical Subject Headings Check Words
Humans;
PICO
Flow chart of study selection procedure
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.
Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.
Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 3 Auxiliary procedures.
Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 4 Procedural and operating time.
Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 5 Hospital stay.
Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.
Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.
Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 3 Procedural and operating time.
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Success of treatment Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Success at 1 week | 1 | 32 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.18 [0.05, 0.62] |
| 1.2 Success at 4 weeks | 1 | 40 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.77 [0.61, 0.98] |
| 1.3 Success at 3 months | 3 | 201 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.46 [0.35, 0.62] |
| 1.4 Success at 1 year | 2 | 107 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.72 [0.54, 0.95] |
| 1.5 Success at 3 months according to stone size (1‐10 mm) | 1 | 39 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.45, 0.90] |
| 1.6 Success at 3 months according to stone size (10‐20 mm) | 2 | 86 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.18, 0.52] |
| 1.7 Success at 3 months according to stone size (21‐30 mm) | 2 | 46 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.34 [0.16, 0.72] |
| 1.8 Success of treating lower pole stones ≤ 20 mm | 2 | 155 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.49 [0.36, 0.67] |
| 2 Re‐treatment Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 2.1 Overall re‐treatment | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Re‐treatment according to stone size (1‐10 mm) | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Re‐treatment according to stone size (11‐20 mm) | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.4 Re‐treatment according to stone size (21‐30 mm) | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 Auxiliary procedures Show forest plot | 2 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Overall auxiliary procedures | 2 | 184 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 8.33 [1.58, 44.02] |
| 3.2 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (1‐10 mm) | 1 | 42 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 6.39 [0.35, 116.57] |
| 3.3 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (11‐20 mm) | 1 | 62 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 6.15 [0.80, 47.07] |
| 3.4 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (21‐30 mm) | 1 | 20 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Auxiliary procedures of lower pole stones (stone size ≤ 20 mm) | 2 | 166 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 8.24 [1.56, 43.40] |
| 4 Procedural and operating time Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 5 Hospital stay Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 Success of treatment Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 1.1 Success at 3 months | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 Re‐treatment Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3 Procedural and operating time Show forest plot | 1 | Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
