BackgroundContrast-enhanced ultrasound in percutaneous nephrolithotomy (CEUS-PCNL) is an economical and practical technique for the treatment of patients with renal stones without significant collecting system dilatation. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the safety and efficacy of CEUS-PCNL and conventional ultrasound (US)-guided (US-PCNL) treatment of patients with renal calculi without significant hydronephrosis.MethodsThis review was conducted with strict adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies on CEUS-PCNL and US-PCNL published in PubMed, SinoMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Web of science until March 1, 2023, were systematically searched. RevMan 5.1 software was used for meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs), weight mean differences (WMDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the fixed-effects or random-effects model. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots.ResultsFour randomized controlled trials involving 334 patients (168 with CEUS-guided PCNL and 166 with US-guided PCNL) were identified. There was no statistically significant difference between CEUS-guided PCNL and US-guided PCNL in terms of the operation time (SMD: − 0.14; 95% CI − 0.35 to 0.08; p = 0.21), minor complications (p = 0.48), major complications (p = 0.28) and overall complications (p = 0.25). However, CEUS-guided PCNL had a higher stone-free rate (OR: 2.22; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.12; p = 0.01), higher success rate of single-needle punctures (OR:3.29; 95% CI 1.82 to 5.95; p < 0.0001), shorter puncture time (SMD: − 1.35; 95% CI − 1.9 to − 0.79; p < 0.00001), shorter hospital stay (SMD: − 0.34; 95% CI − 0.55 to − 0.12; p = 0.002) and lesser hemoglobin loss (SMD: − 0.83; 95% CI − 1.06 to − 0.61; p < 0.00001) as compared with conventional US-guided PCNL.ConclusionsAccording to almost all pooled data, CEUS-guided PCNL is superior to US-guided PCNL in terms of the perioperative outcomes. However, many rigorous clinical randomized controlled studies are required to obtain more accurate results.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022367060).Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12894-023-01269-8.