Literature DB >> 11796273

Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth?

Anurag Khaitan1, Narmada P Gupta, Ashok K Hemal, P N Dogra, Amlesh Seth, Monish Aron.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the significance of asymptomatic residual stone fragments of less than 4 mm (clinically insignificant residual fragments [CIRFs]) after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
METHODS: Eighty-one patients were followed up for 6 to 60 months (mean 15) after ESWL to determine the fate of the CIRFs.
RESULTS: Of the 81 patients, 6 were lost to follow-up, leaving 75 patients. During follow-up, fragments passed spontaneously in 18 patients, remained stable in 13 patients, and became clinically significant in 44 patients who developed one or more complications. For the latter patients, repeated ESWL was done in 16, percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 3, and ureteroscopic stone removal in 4 patients. The remaining 21 patients were treated conservatively with analgesics. We found that 53% of the CIRFs located in the pelvis passed spontaneously, and most of the CIRFs in caliceal location became clinically significant. Also, as the stone burden and number of stone fragments increased, the risk of CIRFs becoming clinically significant increased. The outcome was the same whether a metabolic abnormality was present or not, provided the patient received appropriate treatment. The clearance rate was highest in the first 6 months. Finally, as the duration of follow-up increased, the rate of complications increased.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with residual stones after ESWL require close follow-up and timely adjuvant therapy. As the number and size of residual fragments increased, the risk of complications increased. A pelvic location was a favorable factor for spontaneous passage. Metabolic defects, if treated adequately, did not increase the regrowth rate. Although the complete clearance rate of CIRFs with repeated ESWL was lower than for the operative interventions, most patients improved with this modality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11796273     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01494-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  20 in total

1.  Medium-term follow-up of clinically insignificant residual fragments after minimal invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prognostic features and risk factors.

Authors:  Xin Li; Long He; Jianzhong Li; Zhongyang Duan; Zijian Gao; Long Liu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

2.  What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney.

Authors:  Bimalesh Purkait; Rahul Janak Sinha; Ankur Bansal; Ashok Kumar Sokhal; Kawaljit Singh; Vishwajeet Singh
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-05-06       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  To Dust or Not To Dust: a Systematic Review of Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy Techniques.

Authors:  Javier E Santiago; Adam B Hollander; Samit D Soni; Richard E Link; Wesley A Mayer
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Bulent Kati; Eyyup Sabri Pelit; Ismail Yagmur; Yigit Akin; Halil Ciftci; Ercan Yeni
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 5.  Physical therapy in the management of stone fragments: progress, status, and needs.

Authors:  Suoshi Jing; Qiongyan Gai; Xin Zhao; Juan Wang; Yuwen Gong; Yangyang Pang; Chen Peng; Yuejun Tian; Yuhan Wang; Zhiping Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Value of ultrasonography and helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of stone-free patients after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (USG and helical CT after SWL).

Authors:  Bora Küpeli; Serhat Gürocak; Lütfi Tunç; Cağri Senocak; Ustünol Karaoğlan; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  How do the residual fragments after SWL affect the health-related quality of life? A critical analysis in a size-based manner.

Authors:  Cahit Sahin; Alper Kafkasli; Cihangir A Cetinel; Fehmi Narter; Erkin Saglam; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-10-02       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Efficacy of the lithotripsy in treating lower pole renal stones.

Authors:  Helen Cui; Eeke Thomee; Jeremy G Noble; John M Reynard; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-03-03       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Infective complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery: a new standardized classification system.

Authors:  Francesco Berardinelli; Piergustavo De Francesco; Michele Marchioni; Nicoletta Cera; Silvia Proietti; Derek Hennessey; Orietta Dalpiaz; Cecilia Cracco; Cesare Scoffone; Luigi Schips; Guido Giusti; Luca Cindolo
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2016-07-21       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results.

Authors:  Faruk Ozgor; Abdulmuttalip Simsek; Murat Binbay; Tolga Akman; Onur Kucuktopcu; Omer Sarilar; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu; Yalcin Berberoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.