PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Bahri, Razman Arabzadeh AU - maleki, Saba AU - Shafiee, Arman AU - Shobeiri, Parnian TI - Ultrasound versus fluoroscopy as imaging guidance for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis AID - 10.1101/2022.10.13.22281046 DP - 2022 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.10.13.22281046 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/13/2022.10.13.22281046.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/10/13/2022.10.13.22281046.full AB - Objectives To determine whether the outcomes of ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UG-PCNL), an alternative to traditional fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (FG-PCNL), are comparable.Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out to discover investigations comparing UG-PCNL to FG-PCNL, and accordingly, a meta-analysis of those studies was performed. The primary outcomes included the stone-free rate (SFR), overall complications based on Clavien-Dindo classification, duration of surgery, duration of patients’ hospitalization, and hemoglobin (Hb) drop during the surgery. All statistical analyses and visualizations were implemented utilizing R software.Results Nineteen studies, including eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and eleven observational cohorts, comprising 3016 patients (1521 UG-PCNL patients) and comparing UG-PCNL with FG-PCNL met the inclusion criteria of the current study. Considering SFR, overall complications, duration of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and Hb drop, our meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients, with p-values of 0.29, 0.47, 0.98, 0.28, and 0.42, respectively. Significant differences were discovered between UG-PCNL and FG-PCNL patients in terms of the length of time they were exposed to radiation (p-value< 0.0001). Moreover, FG-PCNL had shorter access time than UG-PCNL (p-value= 0.04).Conclusion UG-PCNL provides the advantage of requiring less radiation exposure while being just as efficient as FG-PCNL; thus, this study suggests prioritizing the use of UG-PCNL.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:N/AI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableThe data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the email address of the corresponding author