Literature DB >> 17445636

Do anatomic factors pose a significant risk in the formation of lower pole stones?

Ramaswamy Manikandan1, Zara Gall, Thiruendran Gunendran, Donald Neilson, Adebanji Adeyoju.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether various anatomic factors predispose to a lower pole stone on one side compared with the other.
METHODS: We analyzed the intravenous urography pictures of 40 consecutive patients presenting with a single lower pole stone. Measurements were taken of the infundibulopelvic angle (IPA), ureteroinfundibular angle, infundibular width, pelvicaliceal height, infundibular length, and pelvicaliceal angle of the affected and normal kidney. The IPA was measured according to the methods of Sampaio, Bagley, and Elbahnasy. A comparison was made to determine whether any of these measurements predisposed one side to form stones.
RESULTS: The mean age was 47 years (range 20 to 80). The mean stone size was 9.2 mm (range 5 to 20). The mean IPA was 94.82 degrees (Sampaio), 56.17 degrees (Bagley), 60.40 degrees (Elbahnasy), and 49.15 degrees (Sampaio) on the affected kidney and 95.97 degrees (P = 0.66), 57.47 degrees (P = 0.57), 65.9 degrees (P = 0.04), and 54 degrees (P = 0.07) on the normal side. A statistically significant difference was found only when we measured the IPA as described by Elbahnasy. The mean infundibular width was 4.4 mm on both sides (P = 0.99). The caliceopelvic height was 21.6 mm on the affected side and 22.6 mm on the normal side (P = 0.30). The infundibular length was 28.6 mm and 27.4 mm (P = 0.16) and the caliceopelvic angle was 48 degrees and 47.6 degrees (P = 0.8) on the affected and normal kidneys, respectively
CONCLUSIONS: Lower pole anatomy as a risk factor for stones depends on the type of measurement used. A consensus should be reached to define how exactly the IPA should be measured. Other anatomic factors were not significantly different between the affected and normal side in our study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17445636     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.01.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  5 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.  Comparison of flexible ureterorenoscopy and micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment for moderately size lower-pole stones.

Authors:  Abdullah Armagan; Tuna Karatag; Ibrahim Buldu; Muhammed Tosun; Ismail Basibuyuk; Mustafa Okan Istanbulluoglu; Abdulkadir Tepeler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-02-25       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  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

4.  Endoscopic treatment of lower pole stones: is a disposable ureteroscope preferable? Results of a prospective case-control study.

Authors:  José A Salvadó; José M Cabello; Sergio Moreno; Renato Cabello; Ruben Olivares; Alfredo Velasco
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2019-09-16

5.  Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature.

Authors:  Sulaiman Sadaf Karim; Luke Hanna; Robert Geraghty; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 3.436

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.