IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0276708.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Razman Arabzadeh Bahri
  • Saba Maleki
  • Arman Shafiee
  • Parnian Shobeiri

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UG-PCNL), an alternative to traditional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FG-PCNL), are comparable. Methods: A 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. Results: Nineteen 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

Suggested Citation

  • Razman Arabzadeh Bahri & Saba Maleki & Arman Shafiee & Parnian Shobeiri, 2023. "Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy as imaging guidance for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276708
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276708
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276708
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0276708&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0276708?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0276708. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.