Literature DB >> 12470462

Endoscopic management of symptomatic caliceal diverticula: a retrospective comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ureteroscopy.

Brian K Auge1, Ravi Munver, John Kourambas, Glenn E Newman, Glenn M Preminger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: A myriad of minimally invasive options exist for managing symptomatic caliceal diverticula, including shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous surgery, retrograde ureteroscopy, and laparoscopy. Yet no direct comparisons have been made in the literature of the relative treatment efficacy of ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PNL). A retrospective review of our patients was performed to determine the most appropriate endoscopic management option for patients with symptomatic caliceal diverticula. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November of 1994 and April 2001, 39 patients presented with symptomatic caliceal diverticula, 37 of which contained calculi. Twenty-two patients (56%) underwent PNL, and 17 patients (44%) were managed by URS. Of the PNL group, 82% required the creation of a neoinfundibulotomy. The stone burden in the PNL group averaged 11.4 x 12.0 mm and that in the URS group 12.7 x 13.0 mm (p > 0.05). Pain, recurrent urinary tract infections, and nausea and vomiting were the presenting complaints in both subgroups of patients, with pain being by far the most common symptom. The average hospital stay was 2.8 days for the PNL group. All the URS procedures were performed on a same-day-surgery basis. Results, including stone-free, symptom-free, and complication rates, were compared for the two groups.
RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of the URS group were symptom free at 6 weeks' follow-up, with an additional 29% reporting an improvement in pain, whereas 86% of the PNL group was completely symptom free at 6 weeks' follow-up. Only 19% of the URS group were stone free on follow-up intravenous urography v 78% of those undergoing PNL (three patients failed to return for follow-up imaging). It was not possible to identify the ostium of the stenotic infundibulum in 4 patients (24%) undergoing URS, and 7 patients (41%) eventually went on to PNL with ultimate success. The PNL was statistically better than URS in producing stone-free results for diverticula located in the upper pole and for stones <11 mm (p < 0.05). No complications occurred in the URS group; however, complications were identified in four patients after PNL. One patient developed clot urinary retention necessitating Foley catheterization and manual bladder irrigation; one patient experienced significant bleeding necessitating early cessation of the procedure. Two patients sustained intrathoracic complications, one a pneumothorax and the other a pneumohemothorax after supra-11(th) rib access. Both were managed successfully with tube thoracostomy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our review clearly suggests an advantage of percutaneous management over ureteroscopy for complex posterior symptomatic caliceal diverticula, although with a slightly increased risk of complications. Therefore, PNL should be considered the primary modality for managing these difficult processes. In cases where the stenotic infundibulum cannot be traversed with a guidewire, creation of a neoinfundibulotomy permitted secure access to the collecting system while providing effective results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12470462     DOI: 10.1089/089277902320913233

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endourol        ISSN: 0892-7790            Impact factor:   2.942


  13 in total

Review 1.  Lasers in percutaneous renal procedures.

Authors:  Nadya M Cinman; Sero Andonian; Arthur D Smith
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2009-06-02       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Stones in special situations.

Authors:  Mordechai Duvdevani; Stavros Sfoungaristos; Karim Bensalah; Benoit Peyronnet; Amy Krambeck; Sanjay Khadji; Ahmet Muslumanuglu; David Leavitt; Jude Divers; Zeph Okeke; Arthur Smith; Janelle Fox; Michael Ost; Andreas J Gross; Hassan Razvi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Sky is no limit for ureteroscopy: extending the indications and special circumstances.

Authors:  Guido Giusti; Silvia Proietti; Roberto Peschechera; Gianluigi Taverna; Giuseppe Sortino; Luca Cindolo; Pierpaolo Graziotti
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 4.  Calyceal diverticula: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Nikhil Waingankar; Samih Hayek; Arthur D Smith; Zeph Okeke
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2014

5.  The treatment option for calyceal diverticulum stones: flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy (FURL) or all-seeing needle-assisted percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)?

Authors:  Jin Zeng; Lu Zhang; Xingfa Chen; Hui He; Xiang Li
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2022-08-22       Impact factor: 2.861

6.  Percutaneous management of caliceal diverticuli.

Authors:  Amy E Krambeck; James E Lingeman
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 2.942

7.  Management of calyceal diverticular calculi: a comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  Okan Bas; Ekrem Ozyuvali; Yasin Aydogmus; Nevzat Can Sener; Onur Dede; Serhat Ozgun; Fatih Hizli; Cagri Senocak; Omer Faruk Bozkurt; Halil Basar; Abdurrahim Imamoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-09-24       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Current concepts.

Authors:  Fabio C Vicentini; Cristiano Mendes Gomes; Alexandre Danilovic; Elias A Chedid Neto; Eduardo Mazzucchi; Miguel Srougi
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2009-01

9.  Percutaneous management of renal caliceal diverticular stones: Ten-year experience of a tertiary care center with different techniques to deal with diverticula after stone extraction.

Authors:  Aneesh Srivastava; Saurabh Sudhir Chipde; Anil Mandhani; Rakesh Kapoor; Mohammad S Ansari
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2013-10

10.  Retrospective Analysis of Ultrasound-guided Flexible Ureteroscopy in the Management of Calyceal Diverticular Calculi.

Authors:  Ji-Qing Zhang; Yong Wang; Jun-Hui Zhang; Xiao-Dong Zhang; Nian-Zeng Xing
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2016-09-05       Impact factor: 2.628

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.