Literature DB >> 18643718

Significance of lower-pole pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy in nonobstructive isolated renal pelvic stones.

Sinan Sozen1, Bora Kupeli, Cenk Acar, Serhat Gurocak, Ustunol Karaoglan, Ibrahim Bozkirli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the probable effect of lower-pole pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with nonobstructive renal pelvic stones. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The clinical records of patients with isolated renal pelvic stones who underwent SWL between 1996 and 2005 were reviewed. After excluding patients with obstruction leading to dilatation, major anatomic abnormalities, noncalcium stones, metabolic abnormalities, history of recurrent stone disease, multiple stones, and previous renal surgery, 153 patients were enrolled in the study. Lower pole infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) and infundibular length and width were measured from intravenous urography. Patients were classified into three groups according to stone burden (group 1, <100 mm(2); group 2, 101-200 mm(2); group 3, 201-400 mm(2)).
RESULTS: The mean stone size was 142.08+/-86.3 mm(2). Overall stone-free rate was 53.6%. Localization of clinically significant or insignificant residual fragments was in the lower calix, renal pelvis, and both in 50 (32.6%), 29 (18.9%), and 8 (5.2%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in pelvicaliceal anatomic features except narrower IPA (P=0.02) in group 1 patients with residual stones.
CONCLUSION: The falling of stone fragments to the lower calix in spite of the ureter whether clinically significant or not after SWL of pelvic stones initially seems to be related to stone burden rather than lower caliceal anatomy. However, existence of a more narrow IPA in group 1 patients with residual fragments led us to believe that lower-pole IPA can play a role in stone clearance, especially for smaller stones, probably because of smaller residual fragment size or the more mobile nature of the primary stone.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18643718     DOI: 10.1089/end.2007.0277

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


  4 in total

1.  Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones.

Authors:  Lene Hyldgaard Bigum; Peter Sommer Ulriksen; Omar Salah Omar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Stones: Passing a stone in your sleep might be easier than you think.

Authors:  Thomas Chi; Marshall L Stoller
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2011-08-30       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Impact of Residual Fragments following Endourological Treatments in Renal Stones.

Authors:  Cenk Acar; Cag Cal
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2012-07-05

4.  A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments.

Authors:  Ewa Bres-Niewada; Bartosz Dybowski; Piotr Zapała; Sławomir Poletajew; Nina Miązek-Zapała; Irmina Michałek; Piotr Radziszewski
Journal:  Cent European J Urol       Date:  2018-06-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.