| 80 | 1 | 28 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
目的：比较摩西钬激光与传统钬激光碎石术治疗上尿路结石的临床疗效与安全性。方法：计算机检索PubMed、Embas、Webof Scinence、中国知网以及万方数据库，搜索自建库至2022年8月的研究。采用RevMan v.5.4软件进行Meta分析。结果：共纳入7项对比研究，包括1372例患者。Meta分析结果表明摩西钬激光组的手术时间（95%CI:-17.21～-1.21;P=0.02）、激光工作时间(95%CI-1.21～-0.67;P<0.01)和总体耗能(95%CI:-1.21～-0.67;P<0.01)低于传统钬激光组。两种方式之间的无石率（OR=1.04,95%CI0.52～2.08;P=0.92）、二次手术率(OR=0.57, 95%CI:0.27～1.19;P=0.14)及并发症发生率(OR=0.66, 95%CI:0.31～1.44;P=0.30)无显著差异。结论：与传统钬激光相比，摩西钬激光具有较短的手术时间，无石率和并发症发生率相似。
Abstract：Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Moses compared with conventional holmium laser lithotripsy for the treatment of patients with upper urinary calculi. Methods: PubMed, Embas, Web of Scinence, China National Knowledge Infrastructure(CNKI) and Wanfang databases were searched by computer to identify eligible studies up to August 2022. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan v.5.4 software. Results: A total of 7 comparative studies were included, including 1372 patients. The results of meta-analysis showed that the operative time(95% CI-17.21,-1.21;P =0.02), laser working time(95% CI-1.21,-0.67;P<0.01), and overall energy consumption(95%CI:-1.21～-0.67;P<0.01) of Moses holmium laser group were lower than those of traditional holmium laser group. There were no significant differences in stone-free rate(OR=1.04,95% CI 0.52～2.08;P=0.92), reoperation rate(OR=0.57,95%CI: 0.27～1.19;P=0.14) and complication rate(OR=0.66,95%CI: 0.31～1.44;P=0.30) between the two methods. Conclusion: The moses holmium laser has shorter operative time, similar stone-free rate and complication rate than traditional Holmium laser.
[1] Scales JrCD, Tasian GE, Schwaderer AL, et al.Urinary stone disease:advancing knowledge, patient care, and population health[J]. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2016, 11(7):1305-1312.
[2] Fried NM, Irby PB. Advances in laser technology and fibre-optic delivery systems in lithotripsy[J]. Nat Rev Urol, 2018, 15(9):563-573.
[3] Geraghty RM, Davis NF, Tzelves L, et al. Best practice in interventional management of urolithiasis:an update from the European Association of Urology guidelines panel for urolithiasis 2022[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2023, 9(1):199-208.
[4] Ventimiglia E, Traxer O. What is moses effect:ahistorical perspective[J]. J Endourol, 2019, 33(5):353-357.
[5] Elhilali MM, Badaan S, Ibrahim A, et al. Use of the moses technology to improve holmium laser lithotripsy outcomes:apreclinical study[J]. J Endourol,2017, 31(6):598-604.
[6] Winship B, Wollin D, Carlos E, et al. Dusting efficiency of the moses holmium laser:an automated in vitro assessment[J]. J Endourol, 2018, 32(12):1131-1135.
[7] Black KM, Aldoukhi AH, Teichman JMH, et al.Pulse modulation with moses technology improves popcorn laser lithotripsy[J]. World J Urol, 2021, 39(6):1699-1705.
[8] Stang A. Critical evaluation of the newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses[J]. Eur J Epidemiol,2010, 25(9):603-605.
[9] Mullerad M, Aguinaga JRA, Aro T, et al. Initial clinical experience with a modulated holmium laser pulse-moses technology:does it enhance laser lithotripsy efficacy?[J]. Rambam Maimonides Med J,2017, 8(4):e0038.
[10] Ibrahim A, Elhilali MM, Fahmy N, et al. Doubleblinded prospective randomized clinical trial comparing regular and moses modes of holmium laser lithotripsy[J]. J Endourol, 2020, 34(5):624-628.
[11] Pietropaolo A, Hughes T, Mani M, et al. Outcomes of ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation(URSL)for kidney stone disease(KSD):comparative cohort study using moses technology 60 W laser system versus regular holmium 20 W laser[J]. J Clin Med, 2021, 10(13):2742.
[12] Wang M, Shao Q, Zhu XD, et al. Efficiency and clinical outcomes of moses technology with flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for treatment of renal calculus[J]. Urol Int, 2021, 105(7-8):587-593.
[13] Knoedler MA, Li S, Best SL, et al. Clinical impact of the institution of moses technology on efficiency during retrograde ureteroscopy for stone disease:single-center experience[J]. J Endourol, 2022, 36(1):65-70.
[14] Pietropaolo A, Mani M, Hughes T, et al. Role of low-versus high-power laser in the treatment of lower pole stones:prospective non-randomized outcomes from a university teaching hospital[J]. Ther Adv Urol, 2022, 14:17562872221097345.
[15]麦海星，左世栋，顾良友，等.摩西钬激光治疗2~3cm肾结石的疗效[J].微创泌尿外科杂志，2022,11(1):8-11.
[16] Kandasami SV, Mamoulakis C, El-Nahas AR, et al. Impact of case volume on outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral stones:the clinical research office of the endourological society ureteroscopy global study[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66(6):1046-1051.
[17] Ozbek R, Senocak C, Haberal HB, et al. Comparison of scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery[J]. World J Urol, 2021, 39(7):2741-2746.
[18] Ulvik?，Harneshaug JR, Gjengst?P. What do we mean by"stone free,"and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy?[J]. J Endourol, 2021, 35(7):961-966.
[19] Lane J, Whitehurst L, Hameed BMZ, et al. Correlation of operative time with outcomes of ureteroscopy and stone treatment:a systematic review of literature[J]. Curr Urol Rep, 2020, 21(4):17.
[20] Becker B, Gross AJ, Netsch C. Ho:YaG laser lithotripsy:recent innovations[J]. Curr Opin Urol,2019, 29(2):103-107.
[21] Mekayten M, Lorber A, Katafigiotis I, etal. Will stone density stop being a key factor in endourology? The impact of stone density on laser time using lumenis laser p120w and standard 20 W laser:acomparative study[j]. J Endourol, 2019, 33(7):585-589.
[22] Pauchard F, Ventimiglia E, Corrales M, et al. A practical guide for intra-renal temperature and pressure management during Rirs:what is the evidence telling us[j]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(12):3429.
基本信息:
DOI：10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2023.02.004
中图分类号:R699.2
引用信息:
[1]李健,陈杰,张曦,等.摩西钬激光碎石术有效性与安全性的Meta分析[J].微创泌尿外科杂志,2023,12(02):87-92.DOI:10.19558/j.cnki.10-1020/r.2023.02.004.
2023-04-05
2023-04-05