PURPOSE: We determined the natural course and compared the deleterious effects in kidneys of shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and observation for asymptomatic lower caliceal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Between April 2007 and August 2008 patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal calculi were enrolled in the study. To assess stone status noncontrast abdominal helical computerized tomography was done 3 and 12 months after intervention. All patients were evaluated by dimercapto-succinic acid renal scintigraphy 6 weeks and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were prospectively randomized to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (31), shock wave lithotripsy (31) and observation (32). Mean +/- SD followup was 19.3 +/- 5 months (range 12 to 29). In the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group all patients were stone-free at month 12. Scintigraphy revealed a scar in 1 patient (3.2%) on month 3 followup imaging. In the shock wave lithotripsy group the stone-free rate was 54.8%. Scintigraphy revealed scarring in 5 patients (16.1%). In the observation group 7 patients (18.7%) required intervention during followup. Median time to intervention was 22.5 +/- 3.7 months (range 18 to 26). One patient (3.1%) had spontaneous stone passage. Scintigraphy did not reveal scarring in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Stone related events were noted in more than 20% of patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal stones observed expectantly. To manage lower caliceal stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy has a significantly higher stone-free rate with less renal scarring than shock wave lithotripsy. Thus, patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal stones must be informed in detail about all management options, especially focusing on percutaneous nephrolithotomy with its outstanding outcome. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We determined the natural course and compared the deleterious effects in kidneys of shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and observation for asymptomatic lower caliceal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2007 and August 2008 patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal calculi were enrolled in the study. To assess stone status noncontrast abdominal helical computerized tomography was done 3 and 12 months after intervention. All patients were evaluated by dimercapto-succinic acid renal scintigraphy 6 weeks and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: A total of 94 patients were prospectively randomized to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (31), shock wave lithotripsy (31) and observation (32). Mean +/- SD followup was 19.3 +/- 5 months (range 12 to 29). In the percutaneous nephrolithotomy group all patients were stone-free at month 12. Scintigraphy revealed a scar in 1 patient (3.2%) on month 3 followup imaging. In the shock wave lithotripsy group the stone-free rate was 54.8%. Scintigraphy revealed scarring in 5 patients (16.1%). In the observation group 7 patients (18.7%) required intervention during followup. Median time to intervention was 22.5 +/- 3.7 months (range 18 to 26). One patient (3.1%) had spontaneous stone passage. Scintigraphy did not reveal scarring in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Stone related events were noted in more than 20% of patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal stones observed expectantly. To manage lower caliceal stones percutaneous nephrolithotomy has a significantly higher stone-free rate with less renal scarring than shock wave lithotripsy. Thus, patients with asymptomatic lower caliceal stones must be informed in detail about all management options, especially focusing on percutaneous nephrolithotomy with its outstanding outcome. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: M D Ufuk Ozturk; Nevzat Can Sener; H N Goksel Goktug; Adnan Gucuk; Ismail Nalbant; M Abdurrahim Imamoglu Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2013 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.226