Evidence of the outcome and safety of upper pole vs. other pole access single puncture PCNL for kidney stones: which is better?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for upper urinary stones using upper pole access (UPA) and other (low or middle) pole access (OPA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of articles investigating the clinical efficacy and safety of UPA and OPA was performed. The relevant literature was obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes, including the stone-free rate, were evaluated using Review Manager 5.4 software. The secondary outcomes (peri- and postoperative complications and operative date) were also compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

Ten comparative studies involving 5,290 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled data showed that the UPA group had a stone-free rate (SFR) similar to that of the OPA group [odds ratio (OR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.94 to 2.03; p=0.22] but a higher incidence of blood transfusion [OR: 1.50; 95% CI: (1.03, 2.19), p=0.04]. There was no statistically significant difference in operative time [mean difference (MD): -7.27; 95% CI: (-25.18, 10.65), p=0.43] or hospital stay [MD: -0.13; 95% CI: (-0.64, 0.37), p=0.60] between the two groups. In addition, the results support that UPA causes fewer complications than OPA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that UPA and OPA are both effective treatments for the management of upper urinary stones. Compared to OPA, UPA is associated with less need for blood transfusion and fewer complications. Nevertheless, the findings should be further confirmed by well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large samples and strict standards.