Literature DB >> 1732583

The natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis.

L S Glowacki1, M L Beecroft, R J Cook, D Pahl, D N Churchill.   

Abstract

An inception cohort of 107 patients was reviewed to establish the natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis. With an over-all mean followup of 31.6 months, 73 patients (68.2%) remained asymptomatic and were censored at the time of the last clinical visit. A symptomatic event developed in 34 patients (31.8%). Spontaneous passage occurred in 16 patients (15.0%), endoureteral removal was done in 6 (5.6%), percutaneous nephrostolithotomy was done in 3 (2.8%) and 9 (8.4%) were referred for therapeutic lithotripsy. Cumulative 5-year probability of a symptomatic event developing was 48.5%. A linear association was identified between the development of a symptomatic event and the number of previous stones as well as the number of asymptomatic stones at identification. A significant burden of illness is associated with an expectant strategy as an approach to asymptomatic urolithiasis. Of the patients who had a symptomatic event 47% had spontaneous stone passage, while 26.5% required urological intervention and 26.5% were referred for therapeutic lithotripsy. Prophylactic extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, although often advocated, has associated risks and is not always a benign procedure. A randomized controlled trial is required to evaluate properly the role of prophylactic lithotripsy versus an expectant strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1732583     DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37225-7

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


  39 in total

Review 1.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Timothy Y Tseng; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  BMJ Clin Evid       Date:  2011-11-10

Review 2.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Malvinder S Parmar
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-06-12

Review 3.  [Controversy on lower pole stones: monitor or intervene?].

Authors:  A Häcker; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 4.  Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

5.  [Calyceal stones].

Authors:  C Netsch; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

6.  Effect of Carbon Dioxide on the Twinkling Artifact in Ultrasound Imaging of Kidney Stones: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Julianna C Simon; Yak-Nam Wang; Bryan W Cunitz; Jeffrey Thiel; Frank Starr; Ziyue Liu; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  Ultrasound Med Biol       Date:  2017-02-09       Impact factor: 2.998

7.  Urinary stones as a novel matrix for human biomonitoring of toxic and essential elements.

Authors:  J Kuta; S Smetanová; D Benová; T Kořistková; J Machát
Journal:  Environ Geochem Health       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 4.609

8.  Noninvasive acoustic manipulation of objects in a living body.

Authors:  Mohamed A Ghanem; Adam D Maxwell; Yak-Nam Wang; Bryan W Cunitz; Vera A Khokhlova; Oleg A Sapozhnikov; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Changing patient and stone features for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in Turkey.

Authors:  Y Ilker; T Tarcan; F Simşek; A Akdaş
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.370

10.  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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.