Article PDF first page preview

First page of Effectiveness of pneumatic versus laser lithotripsy for upper tract urolithiasis – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) for upper tract urolithiasis. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified trials comparing LL and PL. Primary outcomes included stone-free rate, operative time, and complications. A random-effects model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics. Results: The systematic literature search identified 6420 studies of which 43 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies reported data from 7,377 patients. Random effect meta-analysis for stone free rate included data from 36 studies and yielded statistically significant higher stone free rates for LL with a pooled OR=2.19 (95% Confidence Interval (CI)=1.63-2.94, p<0.001). Heterogeneity was substantial (I²= 62%; p<0.01). Random effect meta-analysis for operative time included data from 31 studies and yielded no statistically significant difference in operative time with a pooled MD=-1.09 minutes (95% CI=-4.39-2. 20, p=0.5161). Heterogeneity was considerable (I²= 98%; p<0.01). Random effect meta-analysis for complications included data from 14 studies and yielded statistically significant fewer complications for LL with a pooled OR=0.68 (95% CI=0.48-0.96, p=0.0276). Heterogeneity was limited (I²= 27%; p=0.17). Conclusions: LL might be superior to PL in upper tract urolithiasis therapy.

Journal Section:
Systematic Review
This content is only available via PDF.
The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel
Open Access License / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
2025
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .
Attribution-NonCommercial