Literature DB >> 16158878

Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy.

Yung-Shun Juan1, Shu-Mien Chuang, Wen-Jeng Wu, Jung-Tsung Shen, Chii-Jye Wang, Chun-Hsiung Huang.   

Abstract

This study retrospectively analyzed patients treated with shock wave ithotripsy (SWL) for lower calyceal stones, to determine the influence of the lower pole anatomy and stone size in predicting the clearance of fragments. Between June 2000 and March 2002, we reviewed excretory urography (IVU) of 59 patients with isolated lower pole stones treated with SWL. A total of 44 men and 15 women, with an age ranging between 23 and 78 years (mean, 55 years), were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups, either a stone-free group or residual-stone group. After SWL, overall stone rate was 57.6%, and clearance for stones less than 10 mm in diameter was 64.5%, whereas clearance was 50% for stones between 10 and 20 mm in diameter. Intrarenal anatomy on IVU, such as infundibular width and infundibulopelvi-ureteric angle showed no significant difference between the stone-free and residual-stone groups. Our analysis showed that three significant variables were relevant to stone clearance: infundibular length, stone size and stone burden. We conclude that SWL is the best treatment for lower pole kidney stones 10 mm or less in diameter, showing lower complication and acceptable stone-free rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16158878     DOI: 10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70134-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kaohsiung J Med Sci        ISSN: 1607-551X            Impact factor:   2.744


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Optimal Management of Lower Polar Calyceal Stone 15 to 20 mm.

Authors:  Naveed Haroon; Syed M Nazim; M Hammad Ather
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-04-16

3.  Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period.

Authors:  Robert Geraghty; Jacob Burr; Nick Simmonds; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

Review 4.  Optimal management of lower pole stones: the direction of future travel.

Authors:  Sacha L Moore; Ewa Bres-Niewada; Paul Cook; Hannah Wells; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2016-07-11

Review 5.  Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Noor Buchholz; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-07-24

6.  Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: Comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period.

Authors:  Jacob Burr; Hiro Ishii; Nick Simmonds; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2015-03-09
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.