RESUMEN
CONTEXT: White light (WL) cystoscopy and transurethral resection of bladder tumour (TURBT) comprise the current gold standard technique for detecting and grading bladder cancer. However, with WL cystoscopy, recurrence following initial TURBT is high, and identification of smaller tumours and carcinoma in situ is poor. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD) has been developed to improve the detection of bladder. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of PDD-guided TURBT compared with WL on recurrence rates (RRs) in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature from inception to April 2020 using Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL was undertaken. Randomised control trials comparing TURBT undertaken with PDD to WL that reported RRs of at least 12 mo were included in the analysis. The primary outcomes were RRs at 12 and 24 mo. The secondary outcomes were reported adverse effects. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twelve randomised controlled trials (2288 patients) were included for the meta-analysis. PDD was found to reduce RRs at 12 mo (RR 0.73, confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.88) and 24 mo (RR 0.75, CI 0.62-0.91). There was an increased risk of recurrence for patients undergoing WL at 12 mo (hazard ratio [HR] 1.14, CI 1.05-1.23) and 24 mo (HR 1.25, CI 1.15-1.35). Two studies reported recurrence data at 60 mo showing statistically significant outcomes in favour of PDD: one showed lower RRs for PDD (49% PDD vs 68% WL), whilst the other showed increased recurrence-free survival (68.2% PDD vs 57.3% WL). Adverse effects appeared to be minimal, though poorly reported. A GRADE analysis showed the evidence to be of moderate certainty overall. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that PDD reduced RRs and improved recurrence-free survival compared with WL in NMIBC over at least 2-yr follow-up. These effects may persist up to 5 yr. Further research in a pragmatic study looking at longer-term outcomes beyond 24 mo will help guide recommendations on clinical adoption. PATIENT SUMMARY: This review suggests that photodynamic diagnosis, compared with white light cystoscopy, improves recurrence-free survival in non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer over at least 2 yr of follow-up. However, confirmatory pragmatic studies with longer-term outcomes are required for its clinical adoption.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: A Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (P < 0.001), whilst calcium channel blockers (CCBs) had no effect compared to controls (79% vs 75%) (P = 0.38). In the subgroup analysis, α-blockers had a shorter time to stone expulsion vs the control group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in expulsion rates between the treatment groups and control group for stones <5 mm in size (P = 0.48), proximal or mid-ureteric stones (P = 0.63 and P = 0.22, respectively). However, α-blockers increased stone expulsion in stones >5 mm (P = 0.02), as well as distal ureteric stones (P < 0.001). The α-blocker group developed more side-effects (6.6% of patients; P < 0.001). The numbers needed to treat for α-blockers was one in 14, for stones >5 mm one in eight, and for distal stones one in 10. CONCLUSION: The primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Advances in minimally invasive surgery for live kidney donors have led to the development of laparoendoscopic single site donor nephrectomy (LESS-DN). At present, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is the technique of choice for donor nephrectomy globally. Compared with open surgical approaches, laparoscopic donor nephrectomy is associated with decreased morbidity, faster recovery times and return to normal activity, and shorter hospital stays. LESS-DN differs from standard laparoscopic donor nephrectomy; LESS-DN requires a single incision through which the procedure is performed and donor kidney is removed. Previous studies have hypothesised that LESS-DN may provide additional benefits for kidney donors and stimulate increased donor rates. OBJECTIVES: This review looked at the benefits and harms of LESS-DN compared with standard laparoscopic nephrectomy for live kidney donors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 28 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and conducted risk of bias evaluation. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) or risk difference (RD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (179 participants) comparing LESS-DN with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. There were no significant differences between LESS-DN and laparoscopic donor nephrectomy for mean operative time (2 studies, 79 participants: MD 6.36 min, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.57), intra-operative blood loss (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -8.31 mL, 95% CI -23.70 to 7.09), or complication rates (3 studies, 179 participants: RD 0.05, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.14). Pain scores at discharge were significantly less in the LESS-DN group (2 studies, 79 participants: MD -1.19, 95% CI -2.17 to -0.21). For all other outcomes (length of hospital stay; length of time to return to normal activities; blood transfusions; conversion to another form of surgery; warm ischaemia time; total analgesic requirement; graft loss) there were no significant differences observed.Although risk of bias was assessed as low overall, one study was assessed at high risk of attrition bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the small number and size of included studies it is uncertain whether LESS-DN is better than laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. Well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better define the role of LESS-DN as a minimally invasive option for kidney donor surgery.
