IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0206810.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open surgery for surgical treatment of patients with staghorn stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Yiwen Chen
  • Jianhua Feng
  • Haifeng Duan
  • Youwei Yue
  • Chaofeng Zhang
  • Tuo Deng
  • Guohua Zeng

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery (OS) for surgical treatment of patients with staghorn stones based on published literatures. Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search of Pubmed, Embase, CNKI and Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of PCNL and OS for treating patients with staghorn stones up to Jan 2018. Results: There was no significant difference in final-SFR between PCNL and OS (odds ratio[OR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64, 2.15; p = 0.61), while PCNL provided a significantly lower immediate-SFR compared with OS (OR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16, 0.51; P

Suggested Citation

  • Yiwen Chen & Jianhua Feng & Haifeng Duan & Youwei Yue & Chaofeng Zhang & Tuo Deng & Guohua Zeng, 2019. "Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open surgery for surgical treatment of patients with staghorn stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206810
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206810
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206810
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206810&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0206810?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.