Literature DB >> 11342888

Impact of lower pole renal anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy: fact or fiction?

K Madbouly1, K Z Sheir, E Elsobky.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined whether there is a significant relationship between the spatial anatomy of the lower pole on preoperative excretory urography and stone fragment clearance after shock wave lithotripsy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The anatomical factors affecting lower pole stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy were evaluated retrospectively in 108 patients. Stone-free status was assessed by renal computerized tomography with or without renal ultrasound. The stone-free rate at 3 months was correlated with lower pole infundibular length and width in mm. as well as with the lower pole infundibulopelvic angle in degrees. The statistical significance of each lower pole anatomical factor as well as other stone, renal and treatment factors were correlated with the stone-free rate using the Mann-Whitney and chi-square tests.
RESULTS: Three months after shock wave lithotripsy 79 patients (73.1%) were free of stones. Mean lower infundibular length plus or minus standard deviation was 20.9 +/- 6.56 mm., mean infundibular width was 5.65 +/- 2.34 mm. and the mean lower pole infundibulopelvic angle was 48.33 +/- 14.84 degrees. In 49 (45.4%) and 59 (54.6%) patients infundibular length was greater than 3 cm. and 3 cm. or less, respectively. Infundibular width was greater than 5 mm. and 5 mm. or less in 45 (41.7%) and 63 (58.3%) patients, respectively. No obtuse infundibulopelvic angles were noted. None of the 3 lower pole anatomical factors had any significant impact on the stone-free rate at 3 months. Renal morphology was the only factor significantly affecting the stone-free rate since stone clearance was significantly less in pyelonephritic kidneys (p = 0.0009).
CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the intrarenal anatomy of the lower pole have no significant impact on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy. Further examination of the lower pole renal anatomy with a search for other contributing factors is still warranted.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11342888

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  11 in total

1.  Pelvi-calyceal height, a predictor of success when treating lower pole stones with extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.

Authors:  A Symes; G Shaw; D Corry; S Choong
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2005-06-04

2.  The impact of radiological anatomy in clearance of lower caliceal stones after shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Mustafa Ozgür Tan; Lokman Irkilata; Ilker Sen; Metin Onaran; Bora Küpeli; Ustünol Karaoğlan; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2007-04-20

Review 3.  Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  Is there a difference in percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes among various types of pelvicaliceal system?

Authors:  Ozgur Yazici; Murat Binbay; Tolga Akman; Cem Kezer; Faruk Ozgor; Emrah Yuruk; Yalcin Berberoglu; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  The treatment of lower pole renal calculi in 2003.

Authors:  Brian R Matlaga; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2002

6.  Comparison of efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones of different locations in children: a study of 311 cases.

Authors:  Lei He; Xizhao Sun; Jianlin Lu; Xiaoming Cong; Huaijun Zhu; Luming Shen; Ying Wang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for moderately size lower-pole stones.

Authors:  Abdullah Armagan; Tuna Karatag; Ibrahim Buldu; Muhammed Tosun; Ismail Basibuyuk; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu; Abdulkadir Tepeler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  The impact of pelvicaliceal features on problematic lower pole stone clearance in different age groups.

Authors:  Serhat Gurocak; Bora Kupeli; Cenk Acar; Mustafa Ozgur Tan; Ustunol Karaoglan; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-07-06       Impact factor: 2.370

9.  Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy - the controversy continues.

Authors:  M Hammad Ather; Fuad Abid; Sobia Akhtar; Karim Khawaja
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2003-01-21       Impact factor: 2.264

10.  Management of 1-2 cm renal stones.

Authors:  Aneesh Srivastava; Saurabh S Chipde
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2013-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.