Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy-guided extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in renal calculi: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ramadhan M, Braga A, Alzaid M, Benzouak T, Hamouche F, Almarzouq A
    Urolithiasis, 2025 Feb 26;53(1):41.
    PMID: 40009135 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-025-01696-2
    Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) is one of the first-line treatments in the management of renal stones and is usually performed using fluoroscopic (FS) guidance. Ultrasonography (US) is a potential alternative with minimal radiation exposure. The primary aim of this study was to compare the stone free rate (SFR) between US and FS guided ESWL. The secondary outcomes were overall complications, re-intervention rate, hematuria, UTI, pain occurrence and number of shocks required. A prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis (CRD42024511335) according to PRISMA guidelines, was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, were searched up to February 15, 2024. Snowballing techniques and Google Scholar were used for external gray literature. Adult and pediatric subgroups were pooled and individually analyzed. Twelve studies were identified with 2673 patients. Ultrasonography yielded a significantly favorable SFR (OR 1.43;95%CI [1.06-1.94]; P = 0.02). This difference was found only in the adult subgroup. No differences were found between modalities, nor within any subgroup in terms of secondary outcomes. In this meta-analysis, US-ESWL demonstrated a higher SFR compared to standard FS-ESWL However, this finding was shown only in adult patients, and although there was no difference in pediatric patients, the minimized radiation exposure remains an attractive attribute in US-ESWL.These results should be interpreted cautiously, due to a limited number of RCTs and heterogeneity between studies. More research is needed especially in pediatric populations, to further elucidate the role of US in ESWL.
  2. Advancing the evidence base in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the need for consensus outcomes and standardized reporting
    Ramadhan M, Alzaid M, Benzouak T, Braga A, Hamouche F, Almarzouq A
    Urolithiasis, 2025 Aug 16;53(1):156.
    PMID: 40817970 DOI: 10.1007/s00240-025-01827-9
  3. Comparative Analysis of Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate and Robotic-Assisted Simple Prostatectomy in Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Benzouak T, Addar A, Prudencio-Brunello MA, Saed Aldien A, Amougou SE, AlShammari A, et al.
    J Urol, 2025 Feb;213(2):150-161.
    PMID: 39423101 DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000004297
    PURPOSE: As the prevalence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) increases, the demand for surgical interventions that optimize patient outcomes while minimizing complications grows. This systematic review compares the efficacy, efficiency, and safety of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) with robotic-assisted simple prostatectomy (RASP), providing insights for evidence-based surgical decision-making in BPH treatment.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the study protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD42024509627). Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature up to February 1, 2024, to include studies that compare HoLEP and RASP in patients with BPH. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale.

    RESULTS: HoLEP and RASP demonstrated equivalent effectiveness in treating BPH, as shown by similar functional outcomes such as maximum urinary flow rate and postvoid residual volume. However, HoLEP outperformed RASP in several operational efficiency metrics, reducing operative time by 49.48 minutes, hospitalization duration by 1.5 days, and catheterization period by 3.8 days. HoLEP also significantly reduced the risk of blood transfusions by 75%. Patients undergoing RASP were 1.87 times more at risk for grade 2 complications and 3.41 times more at risk for developing grade 3 or above complications.

    CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP and RASP are effective for managing BPH. HoLEP shows advantages in recovery metrics and lower blood transfusion rates, while RASP benefits from ease of implementation in robotic-equipped facilities. Optimizing surgical outcomes will depend on reducing disparities in technique adoption, improving surgical training, and aligning with evidence-based guidelines.

Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links