Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Bai, Yunjin; Tang, Yin; Deng, Lan; Wang, Xiaoming; Yang, Yubo; Wang, Jia; Han, Ping

doi:10.1186/s12894-017-0266-7

BMC Urology

Table 1 The basic characteristic of included studies

From: Management of large renal stones: laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy

Study/year	Study design	Study period	Surgical approach	Sample size	Age (year) (mean±SD)	Staghorn(%)	Stone feature	Stone burden (mean ±SD)	Study quality
Goel 2003 [11]	CCS	1995–2003	RLP	16	38.9(21–60)	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	3.6 cm(3.2–4.5)	5^a
Goel 2003 [11]	CCS	1995–2003	PCNL	12	41.4(20–62)	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	4.1 cm(3.5–5.2)	5^a
Al-Hunayan 2011 [8]	RCT	2002–2010	RLP	55	41.2 ± 11.7	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	2.4 ± 0.4 cm	3^b
Al-Hunayan 2011 [8]	RCT	2002–2010	PCNL	50	38.9 ± 11.9	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	2.5 ± 0.4 cm	3^b
Perlin 2011 [12]	CCS	2009–2011	RLP	5	-	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>2.3 cm	5^a
Perlin 2011 [12]	CCS	2009–2011	PCNL	20	-	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>2.3 cm	5^a
Tefekli 2012 [9]	CCS	2006–2009	RLP	26	36.5 ± 11.1	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>4 cm²	6^a
Tefekli 2012 [9]	CCS	2006–2009	PCNL	26	37.1 ± 10.0	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>4 cm²	6^a
Aminsharifi 2013 [10]	CCS	2009–2012	RLP	30	43.8 ± 15.0	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	3.53 ± 0.73 cm	5^a
Aminsharifi 2013 [10]	CCS	2009–2012	PCNL	30	45.3 ± 14.8	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	3.66 ± 0.7 cm	5^a
Singh 2014 [14]	RCT	2010–2012	RLP	22	45.55 ± 14.22	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>3 cm	3^b
Singh 2014 [14]	RCT	2010–2012	PCNL	22	44.95 ± 13.81	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	>3 cm	3^b
Fawzi 2015 [13]	RCT	2012–2014	RLP	30	42.4 ± 12.1	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	3.2 ± 0.6 cm	2^b
Fawzi 2015 [13]	RCT	2012–2014	PCNL	30	44.6 ± 11.4	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	3.4 ± 0.5 cm	2^b
Basiri 2014 [15]	RCT	2009–2012	TLP	30	38.5 ± 15.9	40	Pelvis	3.6 (2.8–4.4)cm	3^b
Basiri 2014 [15]	RCT	2009–2012	PCNL	30	42.1 ± 14.3	30	Pelvis	3.3 (2.7–4.2)cm	3^b
Gaur 2001 [21]	CCS	--	RLP	42	39.12(8–65)	0	Multiple, Pelvis and calyx	2.0(1.0–4.8)cm	4^a
Gaur 2001 [21]	CCS	--	PCNL	47	34.4	0	Multiple, Pelvis and calyx	2.9(2.0–3.8)cm	4^a
Lee 2014 [19]	CCS	2004–2011	TLP	45	56.0 ± 13.7	4.4	Multiple, Pelvis and calyx	4.93 ± 3.03 cm	6^a
Lee 2014 [19]	CCS	2004–2011	PCNL	39	54.3 ± 13.0	28	Multiple, Pelvis and calyx	4.63 ± 1.65 cm	6^a
Meria 2005 [17]	CCS	1999–2004	TLP	16	42 (21–63)	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	2.5 (2.0–3.3)cm	5^a
Meria 2005 [17]	CCS	1999–2004	PCNL	16	45 (24–69)	NA	Solitary, Pelvis	2.6 (2.0–4.0)cm
Li 2014 [18]	RCT	2009–2013	RLP	89	55.63 ± 10.98	17	Pelvis	2.93 ± 1.02 cm	3^b
Li 2014 [18]	RCT	2009–2013	PCNL	89	53.15 ± 11.54	19	Pelvis	3.0 ± 0.96 cm	3^b
Tepeler 2009 [16]	CCS	2006–2008	RLP	16	41.2 ± 16.8	NA	Pelvis	8.82 ± 3.2 cm2	3^a
Tepeler 2009 [16]	CCS	2006–2008	PCNL	16	43.86 ± 14.11	NA		8.49 ± 2.6 cm2	3^a
Haggag 2013 [20]	CCS	2009–2012	RLP	10	38.8 ± 12.17	NA	Pelvis	6.5 ± 1.20 cm2	4^a
Haggag 2013 [20]	CCS	2009–2012	PCNL	42	42.03 ± 13.17	NA		4.19 ± 2.03 cm2	4^a

RCT randomized controlled trial, CCS case controlled study, PCNL percutaneous nephrolithotomy, NA not available, RLP retroperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy, TLP transperitoneal laparoscopic pyelolithotomy
^a Using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (score from 0 to 9)
^b Using Jadad scale (score from 0 to 5)

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2490

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com