BJU international · 2026
Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Han Jie, Yaow Clyve, Chong Ryan Ian Houe, Kelzang Sonam, Gauhar Vineet, Yuen Steffi Kar Kei, Low Alvin Wei Xiang, Sundaram Palaniappan, Zhu Wei, Zeng Guohua, Chong Tsung Wen, Du Jingzeng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and perioperative outcomes of contemporary flexible and navigable suction access sheath-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (FANS-RIRS) against percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the management of large upper urinary tract stones, as despite technological advances in RIRS such as high-powered lasers and FANS that have substantially enhanced its performance, current guidelines continue to recommend PCNL as first-line treatment for renal stones >2cm.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies performing direct comparisons of FANS-RIRS against PCNL in adult patients until September 2025. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs) and need for ancillary procedures. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospitalisation, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (three randomised control trials, seven retrospective cohort studies) comprising 2347 patients were included; preoperative stone sizes were predominantly 2-3 cm. All PCNL procedures in the studies included were performed as mini-PCNL. The SFRs for FANS-RIRS were comparable with mini-PCNL across all stone sizes (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.17) and stones ≥2 cm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.08), with low heterogeneity. Ancillary procedures rates were similar (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61-2.44). FANS-RIRS was associated with significantly fewer overall complications, specifically smaller haemoglobin decline, need for transfusion, and shorter hospital stay. However, mini-PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times for stones ≥2 cm. Urosepsis rates were low and similar between both groups. Limitations include predominance of Asian studies, variability of practice, and inclusion of non-randomised studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary FANS-RIRS achieves SFRs comparable to mini-PCNL even for 2-3 cm stones, while offering superior safety profiles and shorter hospitalisation; this supports FANS-RIRS as a viable primary treatment in selected patients.
METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies performing direct comparisons of FANS-RIRS against PCNL in adult patients until September 2025. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs) and need for ancillary procedures. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospitalisation, and postoperative complications.
RESULTS: A total of 10 studies (three randomised control trials, seven retrospective cohort studies) comprising 2347 patients were included; preoperative stone sizes were predominantly 2-3 cm. All PCNL procedures in the studies included were performed as mini-PCNL. The SFRs for FANS-RIRS were comparable with mini-PCNL across all stone sizes (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-1.17) and stones ≥2 cm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60-1.08), with low heterogeneity. Ancillary procedures rates were similar (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61-2.44). FANS-RIRS was associated with significantly fewer overall complications, specifically smaller haemoglobin decline, need for transfusion, and shorter hospital stay. However, mini-PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times for stones ≥2 cm. Urosepsis rates were low and similar between both groups. Limitations include predominance of Asian studies, variability of practice, and inclusion of non-randomised studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary FANS-RIRS achieves SFRs comparable to mini-PCNL even for 2-3 cm stones, while offering superior safety profiles and shorter hospitalisation; this supports FANS-RIRS as a viable primary treatment in selected patients.