Literature DB >> 21599528

Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up.

Fatih Altunrende1, Ahmet Tefekli, Robert J Stein, Riccardo Autorino, Emrah Yuruk, Humberto Laydner, Murat Binbay, Ahmet Y Muslumanoglu.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs), defined as asymptomatic, noninfectious, ≤4  mm fragments, are sometimes observed after percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Because the natural history of these fragments is unclear, we investigated the medium-term outcome of these fragments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: During a 3-year period, 430 patients underwent PCNL. Overall stone-free rate was 74.5%, and CIRFs were encountered in 22% of cases 3 months after surgery. A total of 38 patients who had CIRFs immediately after PCNL with at least 24 months of follow-up were included in the study. All patients were subjected to periodic follow-up with detailed history, clinical examination, and radiographic follow-up. Serum biochemistry together with urine metabolic evaluation was also performed.
RESULTS: The median follow-up was 28.4±5.3 months (range 24-38  mos). Ten (26.3%) patients had a symptomatic episode that necessitated medical therapy during follow-up while others remained asymptomatic. Radiologic assessment showed an increase in the size of the fragments in 8 (21.1%) patients, while the size of the fragments was stable or decreased in 27 (71.1%) cases. Three (7.9%) patients had spontaneous stone passage. Metabolic evaluation revealed abnormalities in 10 (26.3%) patients. Stone analysis revealed magnesium ammonium phosphate in three of eight patients who had an increase in residual fragment size. Also, only two of these eight patients had a metabolic abnormality (one hypocitraturia and one hypercalciuria).
CONCLUSION: Medium-term follow-up of CIRFs after PCNL revealed that progression within 2 years is relatively common. Increase in fragment size is common in patients with struvite stones, and presence of risk factors on 24-hour urine metabolic analysis does not seem to predict growth of observed fragments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21599528     DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0491

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


  26 in total

1.  The comparison of laparoscopic pyelolithotomy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of solitary large renal pelvic stones.

Authors:  Ahmet Tefekli; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Tolga Akman; Muzaffer Akçay; Murat Baykal; Mert Ali Karadağ; Ahmet Y Muslumanoglu; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-02-04

2.  Laparoscopic pyelolithotomy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a solitary renal pelvis stone larger than 3 cm: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Alireza Aminsharifi; Mohammad-Mehdi Hosseini; Abbasali Khakbaz
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-07-23       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Influence of endourological devices on 3D reconstruction image quality using the Uro Dyna-CT.

Authors:  M-C Rassweiler; M Ritter; M-S Michel; A Häcker
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 4.226

4.  What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney.

Authors:  Bimalesh Purkait; Rahul Janak Sinha; Ankur Bansal; Ashok Kumar Sokhal; Kawaljit Singh; Vishwajeet Singh
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-05-06       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Which way is best for stone fragments and dust extraction during percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Bulent Kati; Eyyup Sabri Pelit; Ismail Yagmur; Yigit Akin; Halil Ciftci; Ercan Yeni
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-05       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 6.  Physical therapy in the management of stone fragments: progress, status, and needs.

Authors:  Suoshi Jing; Qiongyan Gai; Xin Zhao; Juan Wang; Yuwen Gong; Yangyang Pang; Chen Peng; Yuejun Tian; Yuhan Wang; Zhiping Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.436

7.  What happens to asymptomatic lower pole kidney stones smaller than 10 mm in children during watchful waiting?

Authors:  Onur Telli; Nurullah Hamidi; Uygar Bagci; Arif Demirbas; Ahmet Metin Hascicek; Tarkan Soygur; Berk Burgu
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.714

8.  Stone scattering during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: role of renal anatomical characteristics.

Authors:  Alireza Aminsharifi; Ali Eslahi; Ali Reza Safarpour; Sasan Mehrabi
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-07-16       Impact factor: 3.436

9.  Focused ultrasound to expel calculi from the kidney: safety and efficacy of a clinical prototype device.

Authors:  Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Bryan W Cunitz; Yak-Nam Wang; Julianna C Simon; Frank Starr; Marla Paun; Barbrina Dunmire; H Denny Liggitt; Andrew P Evan; James A McAteer; Ryan S Hsi; Michael R Bailey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results.

Authors:  Faruk Ozgor; Abdulmuttalip Simsek; Murat Binbay; Tolga Akman; Onur Kucuktopcu; Omer Sarilar; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu; Yalcin Berberoglu
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.