Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr:198:193-206.
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2024.12.030. Epub 2024 Dec 21.

Endourological Management of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review, Bayesian Network Meta-analysis and Meta-regression

Affiliations

Endourological Management of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review, Bayesian Network Meta-analysis and Meta-regression

David Eugenio Hinojosa-Gonzalez et al. Urology. 2025 Apr.

Abstract

Objective: To compare stone-free rates (SFRs), operative times, and transfusion rates of various endoscopic techniques for kidney stone management.

Methods: A systematic review was performed, identifying studies comparing the different endoscopic techniques in patients with renal stones. Studies were grouped by location and size of stones (lower pole, 1-2cm, and >2 cm). Data were extracted to build a Bayesian network modeling the comparisons. Meta-regression adjusted for variations in stone-free definitions. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% credible intervals were reported.

Results: A total of 40 studies were included for analysis, providing a total population of 6696 patients. For lower pole stones, both percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (OR 2.0 [1.2, 3.3]) and mini-PCNL (OR 2.3 [1.5, 3.6]) showed increased SFRs when compared to retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), while micro-PCNL exhibited a non-significant difference (OR 0.94 [0.39,2.3]). For stones between 1-2cm, mini-PCNL showed an increased SFR (OR 2.5 [1.5,4.1]) when compared to RIRS; however, there was no significant difference in SFR among the rest of the interventions when compared to RIRS. For stones larger than 2 cm, PCNL, mini-PCNL, and ultramini-PCNL resulted in higher SFRs compared to RIRS.

Conclusion: For 1-2cm upper pole/interpolar stones, percutaneous approaches except mini-PCNL did not achieve superior SFRs compared to RIRS. For >2 cm stones and lower pole stones, all percutaneous methods, except micro-PCNL, exhibited higher stone clearance than RIRS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources