Literature DB >> 12600431

Stone burden in an average Swedish population of stone formers requiring active stone removal: how can the stone size be estimated in the clinical routine?

Hans-Göran Tiselius1, Annika Andersson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To get information on the distribution of stone burdens in an average and representative group of Swedish stone forming patients requiring active removal of stones from the kidneys or ureters and to compare different methods for assessing the stone burden.
METHODS: A computerised device was used to measure the total stone surface area (A(measured)) of 599 stone situations in kidneys and ureters in a consecutive group of patients referred to active stone removal. These measurements were compared with the large and short transverse diameters of the greatest stone, the sum of the largest diameters of the stones, the arithmetically calculated surface area (A(calculated)) as well as with the stone-types (A-F) previously described. RESULT: There were 483 stone situations with one and 116 with more than one stone. The stones were found in 407 men and 192 women. In 343 cases were the stones on the left side and in 256 on the right side. There were 34 staghorn stones. Of the examined stone situations 250 were in the kidney and 349 in the ureter. An A(measured) above 300 mm(2) was recorded in 7% of all stone situations. The corresponding numbers for A(measured) above 200 mm(2), 500 mm(2) and 700 mm(2) were 13%, 4% and 3%, respectively. When staghorn stones were excluded, good correlations were recorded for all variables but the best correlation was found between A(measured) and A(calculated). A revision of the previously published stone-type subgroups is suggested based on the following limits for the stone surface area: A < or = 30 mm(2), B = 31-300 mm(2), C = 301-700 mm(2) and D > 700 mm(2).
CONCLUSION: The distribution of stone situations with different stone burden in an average Swedish population is described. With the exception of staghorn stones and stones with extremely irregular form an acceptable estimate of the stone surface are can be arithmetically derived from the length and the width of the stone. Copyright 2003 Elsevier Science B.V.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12600431     DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00006-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Urol        ISSN: 0302-2838            Impact factor:   20.096


  36 in total

1.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn stones: Which nomogram can better predict postoperative outcomes?

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ofer N Gofrit; Dov Pode; Ezekiel H Landau; Mordechai Duvdevani
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-12-11       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  A preliminary study: the role of preoperative procalcitonin in predicting postoperative fever after mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with a negative baseline urine culture.

Authors:  Deng Li; Minglei Sha; Lei Chen; Yinglong Xiao; Jun Lu; Yi Shao
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Predictors of clinical outcome after minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal calculus.

Authors:  Zhao-Lun Li; Qian Deng; Tie Chong; Peng Zhang; He-Cheng Li; Hong-Liang Li; Hai-Wen Chen; Wei-Min Gan
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy with non-absorbable hemostatic sealant (Quikclot®) versus nephrostomy tube placement: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Authors:  Kyo Chul Koo; Sang Un Park; Ho Sung Jang; Chang-Hee Hong
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Determinants of health-related quality of life for patients after urinary lithotripsy: ureteroscopic vs. shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Shuzo Hamamoto; Rei Unno; Kazumi Taguchi; Taku Naiki; Ryosuke Ando; Atsushi Okada; Takaaki Inoue; Shinsuke Okada; Mostafa AbdelRazek; Kenjiro Kohri; Takahiro Yasui
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-03-29       Impact factor: 3.436

6.  Comparative analyses of percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus open surgery in pediatric urinary stone disease.

Authors:  Omer Bayrak; Ilker Seckiner; Sakip Erturhan; Ibrahim Duzgun; Faruk Yagci
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 1.827

7.  Prediction of stone-free status and complication rates after tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a comparative and retrospective study using three stone-scoring systems and preoperative parameters.

Authors:  Sae Woong Choi; Woong Jin Bae; U-Syn Ha; Sung-Hoo Hong; Ji Youl Lee; Sae Woong Kim; Hyuk Jin Cho
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-07-12       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Single lower calyceal percutaneous tract combined with flexible nephroscopy: A valuable treatment paradigm for staghorn stones.

Authors:  Stavros Sfoungaristos; Ioannis Mykoniatis; Ioannis Katafigiotis; Ayman Isid; Ofer N Gofrit; Constantinos A Constantinides; Mordechai Duvdevani
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Evaluation of stone-free rate using Guy's Stone Score and assessment of complications using modified Clavien grading system for percutaneous nephro-lithotomy.

Authors:  Rajan Kumar Sinha; Subhabrata Mukherjee; Tarun Jindal; Pramod Kumar Sharma; Barun Saha; Nilanjan Mitra; Jay Kumar; Chandranath Mukhopadhyay; Nabankur Ghosh; Mir Reza Kamal; Soumendra Nath Mandal; Dilip Karmakar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-04-08       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Large orthotopic reservoir stone burden: Role of open surgery.

Authors:  Khaled Madbouly
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2010-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.