Yazar "Zhu, Wei" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 6 / 6
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Correction: International alliance of urolithiasis (iau) consensus on miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy
    (2024) Zeng, Guo Hua; Zhong, Wen; Mazzon, Giorgio; Zhu, Wei; Lahme, Sven; de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.; Choong, Simon
    After publication of the article, it was brought to our attention that the author name Otas Durutovic was duplicated in the author list and the second one should be replaced by the author Chu Ann Chai, and the affiliations of Ji-Wen Cheng and Chu Ann Chai are incorrect, the correct author list with correct affiliations is shown below: Guo-Hua Zeng, Wen Zhong, Giorgio Mazzon, Wei Zhu, Sven Lahme, Sanjay Khadgi, Janak Desai, Madhu Agrawal, David Schulsinger, Mantu Gupta, Emanuele Montanari, Juan Manuel Lopez Martinez, Shabir Almousawi, Vincent Emanuel F. Malonzo, Seshadri Sriprasad, Otas Durutovic, Vimoshan Arumuham, Stefania Ferretti, Wissam Kamal, Ke-Wei Xu, Fan Cheng, Xiao-Feng Gao, Ji-Wen Cheng, Bhaskar Somani, Mordechai Duvdevani, Kah Ann Git, Christian Seitz, Norberto Bernardo, Tarek Ahmed Amin Ibrahim, Albert Aquino, Takahiro Yasui, Cristian Fiori, Thomas Knoll, Athanasios Papatsoris, Nariman Gadzhiev, Ulanbek Zhanbyrbekuly, Oriol Angerri, Hugo Lopez Ramos, Iliya Saltirov, Mohamad Moussa, Guido Giusti, Fabio Vicentini, Edgar Beltran Suarez, Margaret Pearle, Glenn M. Preminger, Qing-Hui Wu, Chu Ann Chai, Khurshid Ghani, Marcus Maroccolo, Marianne Brehmer, Palle J. Osther, Marek Zawadzki, Azimdjon Tursunkulov, Monolov Nurbek Kytaibekovich, Abdusamad Abdukakhorovich Abuvohidov, Cesar Antonio Recalde Lara, Zamari Noori, Stefano Paolo Zanetti, Sunil Shrestha, Jean de la Rosette, John Denstedt, Zhang-Qun Ye, Kemal Sarica & Simon Choong. The original publication has been updated.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    International alliance of urolithiasis (iau) consensus on miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy
    (2024) Zeng, Guo Hua; Zhong, Wen; Mazzon, Giorgio; Zhu, Wei; Lahme, Sven; de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.; Choong, Simon
    Over the past three decades, there has been increasing interest in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPCNL) techniques featuring smaller tracts as they offer potential solutions to mitigate complications associated with standard PCNL (sPCNL). However, despite this growing acceptance and recognition of its benefits, unresolved controversies and acknowledged limitations continue to impede widespread adoption due to a lack of consensus on optimal perioperative management strategies and procedural tips and tricks. In response to these challenges, an international panel comprising experts from the International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) took on the task of compiling an expert consensus document on mPCNL procedures aimed at providing urologists with a comprehensive clinical framework for practice. This endeavor involved conducting a systematic literature review to identify research gaps (RGs), which formed the foundation for developing a structured questionnaire survey. Subsequently, a two-round modified Delphi survey was implemented, culminating in a group meeting to generate final evidence-based comments. All 64 experts completed the second-round survey, resulting in a response rate of 100.0%. Fifty-eight key questions were raised focusing on mPCNLs within 4 main domains, including general information (13 questions), preoperative work-up (13 questions), procedural tips and tricks (19 questions), and postoperative evaluation and follow-up (13 questions). Additionally, 9 questions evaluated the experts’ experience with PCNLs. Consensus was reached on 30 questions after the second-round survey, while professional statements for the remaining 28 key questions were provided after discussion in an online panel meeting. mPCNL, characterized by a tract smaller than 18 Fr and an innovative lithotripsy technique, has firmly established itself as a viable and effective approach for managing upper urinary tract stones in both adults and pediatrics. It offers several advantages over sPCNL including reduced bleeding, fewer requirements for nephrostomy tubes, decreased pain, and shorter hospital stays. The series of detailed techniques presented here serve as a comprehensive guide for urologists, aiming to improve their procedural understanding and optimize patient outcomes.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a noninferior modality to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 20-40 mm renal calculi: A Multicenter randomized controlled trial
    (Elsevier, 2021) Zeng, Guohua; Cai, Chao; Duan, Xianzhong; Xun, Xu; Mao, Houping; Li, Xuedong; Nie, Yong; Xie, Jianjun; Li, Jiongming; Lu, Jun; Zou, Xiaofeng; Mok, Jianfeng; Li, Chengyang; Li, Jianzhong; Wang, Weiguo; Yu, Yonggang; Fei, Xiang; Gu, Xianen; Chen, Jianhui; Kong, Xiangbo; Pan, Jian; Zhu, Wei; Zhao, Zhijian; Wu, Wenqi; Sun, Hongling; Liu, Yongda; de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.
    Background: High quality of evidence comparing mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mPNL) with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPNL) for the treatment of larger-sized renal stones is lacking. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of mPNL and sPNL for the treatment of 20–40 mm renal stones. Design, setting, and participants: A parallel, open-label, and noninferior randomized controlled trial was performed at 20 Chinese centers (2016–2019). The inclusion criteria were patients 18–70 yr old, with normal renal function, and 20–40 mm renal stones. Intervention: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy PNL was performed using either 18 F or 24 F percutaneous nephrostomy tracts. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was the one-session stone-free rate (SFR). The secondary outcomes included operating time, visual analog pain scale (VAS) score, blood loss, complications as per the Clavien-Dindo grading system, and length of hospitalization. Results and limitations: The 1980 intention-to-treat patients were randomized. The mPNL group achieved a noninferior one-session SFR to the sPNL group by the one-side noninferiority test (0.5% [difference], p < 0.001). The transfusion and embolization rates were comparable; however, the sPNL group had a higher hemoglobin drop (5.2 g/l, p < 0.001). The sPNL yielded shorter operating time (–2.2 min, p = 0.008) but a higher VAS score (0.8, p < 0.001). Patients in the sPNL group also had longer hospitalization (0.6 d, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in fever or urosepsis occurrences. The study's main limitation was that only 18F or 24F tract sizes were used. Conclusions: Mini mPNL achieves noninferior SFR outcomes to sPNL, but with reduced bleeding, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization. Patient summary: We evaluated the surgical outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using two different sizes of nephrostomy tracts in a large population. We found that the smaller tract might be a sensible alternative for patients with 20–40 mm renal stones. This multicenter, parallel, open-label, and noninferior randomized controlled trial showed that mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy achieved noninferior stone-free rate with advantages of reduced blood loss, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospitalization. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy should be considered a sensible alternative treatment of 20–40 mm renal stones.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis regimen in retrograde intrarenal surgery: Evidence from a randomised controlled trial
    (Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2019) Zhao, Zhijian; Fan, Junhong; Sun, Hongling; Zhong, Wen; Zhu, Wei; Liu, Yongda; Wu, Wenqi; de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.; del Pilar Laguna Pes, Maria; Zeng, Guohua
    Objective: To study the incidence of postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) following different antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) regimens in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Patients and Methods: Single-centre, randomised, controlled trial (August 2014–September 2017) including 426 patients with renal stones with preoperative sterile urine managed by RIRS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02304822). Different ciprofloxacin-based ABP regimens were used and included a zero dose, single dose (30 min before surgery) or two doses (first dose at 30 min before RIRS and additional dose within 6 h after RIRS). The incidence of SIRS was compared using intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Results: Each group enrolled 142 patients. In the ITT analysis, a zero dose of ABP was statistically similar to the two ABP regimes for the incidence of SIRS (9.9% vs single dose 4.9%, P = 0.112; vs two doses 4.2%, P = 0.062). There were also no relevant differences across groups in the PP analysis; no urosepsis was recorded. In subgroup analysis with stratification by stone area, the three regimens all had a low and similar incidence of SIRS for stones of ?200 mm2 in the ITT analysis with a sufficient power value (5.4% vs 6.2% vs 3.6%, P = 0.945 vs single dose and P = 0.553 vs two doses). However, there was a greater chance of SIRS in patients who received no ABP with stones of >200 mm2 (18% vs single dose 4.3%, P = 0.036; vs two doses 5.5%, P = 0.044). Similar trends were seen in the PP analysis. Conclusions: For patients with preoperative sterile urine, ABP is not strongly recommended in patients with stones of ?200 mm2, but for stones >200 mm2 single-dose ABP is still required.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1-2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: An international multicentre randomised controlled trial
    (Wiley, 2018) Zeng, Guohua; Zhang, Tao; Agrawal, Madhu; He, Xiang; Zhang, Wei; Xiao, Kefeng; Li, Hulin; Li, Xuedong; Xu, Changbao; Yang, Sixing; de la Rosette, Jean J. M. C. H.; Fan, Junhong; Zhu, Wei; Sarıca, Kemal
    Objectives To compare the safety and effectiveness of super-minipercutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment of 1-2 cm lowerpole renal calculi (LPC). Patients and Methods An international multicentre, prospective, randomised, unblinded controlled study was conducted at 10 academic medical centres in China, India, and Turkey, between August 2015 and June 2017. In all, 160 consecutive patients with 1-2 cm LPC were randomised to receive SMP or RIRS. The primary endpoint was stone-free rate (SFR). Stone-free status was defined as no residual fragments of >= 0.3 cm on plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder, and ultrasonography at 1-day and on computed tomography at 3-months after operation. Secondary endpoints included blood loss, operating time, postoperative pain scores, auxiliary procedures, complications, and hospital stay. Postoperative follow-up was scheduled at 3 months. Analysis was by intention-totreat. The trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials. gov/ (NCT02519634). Results The two groups had similar baseline characteristics. The mean (SD) stone diameters were comparable between the groups, at 1.50 (0.29) cm for the SMP group vs 1.43 (0.34) cm for the RIRS group (P = 0.214). SMP achieved a significantly better 1-day and 3-month SFR than RIRS (1-day SFR 91.2% vs 71.2%, P = 0.001; 3-months SFR 93.8% vs 82.5%, P = 0.028). The auxiliary procedure rate was lower in the SMP group. RIRS was found to be superior with lower haemoglobin drop and less postoperative pain. Blood transfusion was not required in either group. There was no significant difference in operating time, hospital stay, and complication rates, between the groups. Conclusions SMP was more effective than RIRS for treating 1-2 cm LPC in terms of a better SFR and lesser auxiliary procedure rate. The complications and hospital stay were comparable. RIRS has the advantage of less postoperative pain.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Treatment of urinary tract infections in the old and fragile
    (Springer, 2020) Zeng, Guohua; Zhu, Wei; Lam, Wayne; Bayramgil, Ayberk
    Introduction Urinary tract infection (UTI) is highly prevalent in the frail elderly population. This review aimed to outline the diagnostic, treatment, and prevention of UTI in the frail aging population. Methods Pubmed and Web of Science search to identify publications until March 2019 relating to the management of UTI in the elderly population was performed. A narrative review of the available literature was performed. Results 64 publications were considered as relevant and included in this review. The diagnosis of symptomatic UTI in the old and fragile could be challenging. Routine screening and antimicrobial therapy for asymptomatic bacteriuria should not be recommended for frail elderly patients. Cautious choice of antibiotics should be guided by uropathogen identified by culture and sensitivity. Understanding local antibiotic resistance rates plays a fundamental part in selecting appropriate antimicrobial treatment. Impact of associated adverse effect, in particular those with effects on cognitive function, should be considered when deciding choice of antibiotics for symptomatic UTI in the elderlies. Optimal management of comorbidities such as diabetes mellitus, adequate treatment of urinary incontinence, and judicious use of urinary catheter is essential to reduce the development of UTI. Conclusion UTI is a significant but common problem in elderly population. Physicians who care for frail elderly patients must be aware of the challenges in the management of asymptomatic UTI, and identifying symptomatic UTI in this population, and their appropriate management strategies. There is strong need in studies to evaluate nonantimicrobial therapies in the prevention of UTI for the frail elderly population.