Assessment of single-probe dual-energy lithotripters in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of preclinical and clinical studies

• Published in: World journal of urology 2023-02, Vol.41 (2), p.551-565
• Main Authors: Mykoniatis, Ioannis, Pyrgidis, Nikolaos, Tzelves, Lazaros, Pietropaolo, Amelia, Juliebø-Jones, Patrick, De Coninck, Vincent, Hameed, Belthangady M. Zeeshan, Chaloupka, Michael, Schulz, Gerald Bastian, Stief, Christian, Kallidonis, Panagiotis, Somani, Bhaskar K., Skolarikos, Andreas
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Blood transfusion; Complications; Embolization; Humans; Invited Review; Kidney Calculi - surgery; Lithotripsy - adverse effects; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Nephrolithiasis; Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous - adverse effects; Nephrology; Nephrostomy, Percutaneous; Oncology; Operative Time; Patients; Postoperative; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Systematic review; Treatment Outcome; Urology
• ISSN: 1433-8726; 0724-4983; 1433-8726
• DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04278-2

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of single-probe dual-energy (SPDE) lithotripters in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Embase databases until July 2022 for any preclinical or clinical studies, exploring the safety and efficacy of different SPDE lithotripters in patients undergoing PCNL. We performed a meta-analysis to compare stone-free rate, bleeding, or other complications and mean operative time between SPDE lithotripters and other lithotripters (PROSPERO: CRD42021285631). Results We included 16 studies (six preclinical, seven observational and three randomized with 625 participants) in the systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. Preclinical studies suggest that SPDE lithotripters are safe and effective for the management of renal stones. Among clinical studies, four studies assessed Trilogy with no comparative arm, two compared Trilogy or ShockPulse with a dual-probe dual-energy lithotripter, two compared Trilogy with a laser, one compared ShockPulse with a pneumatic lithotripter, and one directly compared Trilogy with ShockPulse. Comparing SPDE lithotripters to other lithotripters, no significant differences were demonstrated in stone free rate (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.53–2.38, I 2  = 0%), postoperative blood transfusion (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34–5.19, I 2  = 0%), embolization (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.02–12.06), operative time (WMD: 2.82 min, 95% CI −7.31–12.95, I 2  = 78%) and postoperative complications based on the Clavien–Dindo classification. Conclusions SPDE lithotripters represent a promising treatment modality for patients requiring PCNL. Despite the initial encouraging findings of preclinical and isolated clinical studies, it seems that Trilogy or ShockPulse provide similar efficiency compared to older generation devices.