Literature DB >> 22350016

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

A Häcker1, M S Michel.   

Abstract

For many years, the treatment options of lower pole stones have been discussed controversially: Watchful waiting, shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous litholapaxy. Small lower pole stones <1 cm can be monitored actively. Shock waves can disintegrate the stones and are recommended for stones <1 cm. However, the stone-free rate is limited because of the particular anatomy of the lower pole. Modern flexible ureterorenoscopes can nowadays reach even anatomically unfavourable lower calyxes. For stones <1 cm good stone-free results can be achieved. For larger stones >2 cm percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the standard treatment modality.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22350016     DOI: 10.1007/s00120-012-2806-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urologe A        ISSN: 0340-2592            Impact factor:   0.639


  34 in total

1.  Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy.

Authors:  J W Collins; F X Keeley; A Timoney
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.588

2.  [Current aspects of stone therapy].

Authors:  T Knoll; G Wendt-Nordahl; L Trojan; A Wenke; N Roeder; P Alken
Journal:  Aktuelle Urol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 0.658

3.  [S2 guidelines on diagnostic, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis : Part 1: Diagnostic and therapy].

Authors:  T Knoll
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Effect of vibration massage therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with lower caliceal stones.

Authors:  A Koşar; A Oztürk; T A Serel; S Akkuş; O S Unal
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Treatment of caliceal calculi.

Authors:  W Hübner; P Porpaczy
Journal:  Br J Urol       Date:  1990-07

6.  Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10-30 mm size.

Authors:  Thomas Knoll; Jan Peter Jessen; Patrick Honeck; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2011-10-29       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Comparison of outcomes of ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi located above and below the pelvic brim.

Authors:  B K Hollenbeck; T G Schuster; G J Faerber; J S Wolf
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Kent Kanao; Jun Nakashima; Ken Nakagawa; Hirotaka Asakura; Akira Miyajima; Mototsugu Oya; Takashi Ohigashi; Masaru Murai
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 9.  Is there a role for prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for asymptomatic calyceal stones?

Authors:  Justin W Collins; Francis X Keeley
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.309

10.  PCNL in the management of lower pole caliceal calculi.

Authors:  S A M Ziaee; Abdollah Nasehi; A Basiri; N Simforoosh; A K Danesh; F Sharifi-Aghdas; A Tabibi
Journal:  Urol J       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 1.510

View more
  1 in total

1.  Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: Parallel group comparison during the same time period.

Authors:  Robert Geraghty; Jacob Burr; Nick Simmonds; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.