Literature DB >> 23228383

Urolithiasis after ileal conduit urinary diversion: a comparison of minimally invasive therapies.

Lindsay L Hertzig1, Markian R Iwaszko, Laureano J Rangel, David E Patterson, Matthew T Gettman, Amy E Krambeck.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We report our experience with ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy and shock wave lithotripsy for symptomatic stone disease in patients with ileal conduit urinary diversion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all patients treated with cystectomy and ileal conduit urinary diversion from 1982 to June 2010 in whom urolithiasis subsequently developed.
RESULTS: We identified 77 patients with urolithiasis requiring surgical intervention after ileal conduit urinary diversion. Average age at treatment was 62.5 years (range 30 to 82). Mean followup was 7.1 years (range 0.1 to 24.3). The primary therapy mode was percutaneous nephrolithotomy in 48 patients (62.3%), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in 20 (26.0%) and ureteroscopy in 9 (11.6%). Average stone size was greater in the nephrolithotomy group than in the ureteroscopy and lithotripsy groups (2.1 vs 0.9 and 1.0 cm, respectively, p <0.0001). Total complication rates were similar, including 29% for nephrolithotomy, 30% for lithotripsy and 33% for ureteroscopy (p = 0.9). The incidence of stone-free status was greater in the nephrolithotomy cohort than in the ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy cohorts (83.3% vs 33.3% and 30%, respectively, p <0.0001). The re-treatment rate did not significantly differ among the groups with 66.7% of the ureteroscopy group requiring subsequent procedures compared to 29.2% of the nephrolithotomy and 45% of the lithotripsy groups (p = 0.08). The change in the mean preoperative and current calculated glomerular filtration rate did not significantly differ among the 3 treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Treatment for urolithiasis in patients with urinary diversion is associated with high re-treatment and complication rates. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy achieves a better stone-free outcome than ureteroscopy or shock wave lithotripsy. However, there is no difference in ancillary procedures or complication rates among the 3 treatment modalities.
Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23228383     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.12.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  6 in total

Review 1.  Stones in special situations.

Authors:  Mordechai Duvdevani; Stavros Sfoungaristos; Karim Bensalah; Benoit Peyronnet; Amy Krambeck; Sanjay Khadji; Ahmet Muslumanuglu; David Leavitt; Jude Divers; Zeph Okeke; Arthur Smith; Janelle Fox; Michael Ost; Andreas J Gross; Hassan Razvi
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 2.  Urolithiasis following urinary diversion.

Authors:  Jai H Seth; Joannis Promponas; Marios Hadjipavlou; Faqar Anjum; Seshadri Sriprasad
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Cystolitholapaxy in Ileal Conduit.

Authors:  Jesse Cohen; Katherine Giuliano; Nikolai Sopko; Nilay Gandhi; Gautam Jayram; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  Urol Case Rep       Date:  2015-10-01

4.  Symptomatic Distal Ureteral Stone in an Ileal Ureter: Treatment by Combined Supine Ureteroscopy and Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Florian Schott; Benedikt Becker; Andreas J Gross; Christopher Netsch
Journal:  J Endourol Case Rep       Date:  2017-07-01

5.  Endourologic strategies for a minimally invasive management of urinary tract stones in patients with urinary diversion.

Authors:  FangLing Zhong; Gurioli Alberto; GuangMing Chen; Wei Zhu; FuCai Tang; Guohua Zeng; Ming Lei
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2018 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.541

6.  Treatment of urinary calculi after Yang-Monti ileal ureter reconstruction: a case report.

Authors:  Zhenxing Wang; Zhaolin Sun; Guangheng Luo; Ye Tian; Xiushu Yang
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 2.264

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.