Literature DB >> 12441921

Is lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success for primary lower pole kidney stones?

Carsten M Sorensen1, Paramjit S Chandhoke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The management of lower pole kidney stones is controversial. We examined whether lower pole caliceal anatomy could predict the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy of primary lower pole kidney stones 20 mm. or less.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: From December 1997 to June 2001, 246 adults with a single, 20 mm. or less radiopaque lower pole renal stone were treated with the Doli 50 lithotriptor (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) while under general anesthesia. Of the 246 patients 190 (77%) had excretory urography available for review. Lower pole infundibular length and width, lower pole infundibulopelvic angle and caliceal-pelvic height were measurable on 161 (85%), 129 (68%), 128 (67%) and 163 (86%) excretory urograms, respectively. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was considered a failure if residual stone fragments remained after 1 month, or an auxiliary procedure or re-treatment was required. RESULTS The overall stone-free rate was 78% (32 of 41) for stones 5 mm. or less, 73% (98 of 135) for stones 6 to 10 mm., 43% (22 of 51) for stones 11 to 15 mm. and 30% (7 of 19) for stones 16 to 20 mm. in maximum linear dimension. The stone-free rates grouped according to stone surface area were 76% (48 of 63 stones) for stone surface area 25 mm.2 or less, 69% (97 of 141) for 26 to 100 mm.2 and 33% (14 of 42) for 101 to 400 mm.2. Caliceal anatomy was not predictive of success even with stones grouped as 10 or less or 11 to 20 mm. Grouping patients with favorable (lower pole infundibulopelvic angle 70 degrees or greater, lower pole infundibular length 30 mm. or less and lower pole infundibular width greater than 5 mm.) versus unfavorable (70 degrees or less, greater than 30 mm. and 5 mm. or less, respectively) anatomy was also not predictive of success.
CONCLUSIONS: On the Doli 50 machine stone size rather than caliceal anatomy is predictive of treatment outcome. Initial treatment failures with this machine should be managed by alternative endoscopic procedures if necessary rather than by repeat shock wave lithotripsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12441921     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000036354.52323.c1

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


  9 in total

1.  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

2.  Prognostic factors of success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the treatment of renal stones.

Authors:  Abdulla Al-Ansari; Khalid As-Sadiq; Sami Al-Said; Nagy Younis; Osama A Jaleel; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Previous shock-wave lithotripsy treatment does not impact the outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Emrah Yürük; Murat Binbay; Tolga Akman; Faruk Özgör; Yalçın Berberoğlu; Ahmet Yaser Müslümanoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2014-12

4.  Factors affecting the success rate of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal calculi in children.

Authors:  Mustafa Ozgur Tan; Mustafa Kirac; Metin Onaran; Ustunol Karaoglan; Nuri Deniz; Ibrahim Bozkirli
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2006-03-04

5.  Diuresis and inversion therapy to improve clearance of lower caliceal stones after shock wave lithotripsy: A prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical study.

Authors:  Abul-Fotouh Ahmed; Essam Shalaby; Aref Maarouf; Yasser Badran; Mahmoud Eladl; Ammar Ghobish
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2015 Apr-Jun

6.  A network meta-analysis on the beneficial effect of medical expulsive therapy after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Tong-Xin Yang; Bang-Hua Liao; Yun-Tian Chen; Hong Li; Qing He; Qin-Yu Liu; Kun-Jie Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Efficacy of commercialised extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy service: a review of 589 renal stones.

Authors:  Tommy Kjærgaard Nielsen; Jørgen Bjerggaard Jensen
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  The utility of automated volume analysis of renal stones before and after shockwave lithotripsy treatment.

Authors:  Helen Wei Cui; Tze Khiang Tan; Frederikke Eichner Christiansen; Palle Jörn Sloth Osther; Benjamin William Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole calculi smaller than one centimeter.

Authors:  Christian Chaussy; Thorsten Bergsdorf
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2008-10
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.