Literature DB >> 23614064

Optimal Management of Lower Polar Calyceal Stone 15 to 20 mm.

Naveed Haroon1, Syed M Nazim, M Hammad Ather.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the stone clearance rate, efficiency quotient (EQ), and early complications of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for solitary lower-pole renal stones measuring 15 to 20 mm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective matched-pair analysis of 142 patients (78 in the SWL and 64 in the PCNL group). Preoperative imaging was done by use of noncontrast computed tomography (CT kidney, ureter, and bladder [KUB]), intravenous urogram, or plain X-ray and ultrasound KUB to assess the largest dimension of the stones. Only patients with radiopaque stones were included. The stone-free rates were assessed with plain X-ray and ultrasound at 4 weeks. Data were analyzed by use of SPSS ver. 19.
RESULTS: The patients' demographic profiles (age, body mass index) and the stone sizes were comparable in the two groups. The mean stone size was 17.4±2.12 in the PCNL group compared with 17.67±2.04 in the SWL group (p=0.45). At 4 weeks, 83% of patients undergoing PCNL were stone-free compared with 51% in the SWL group (p<0.001). The EQ for the PCNL group was 76% compared with 44% for the SWL group (p<0.001). Ancillary procedures were required by 9% of patients in the PCNL group compared with 15% in the SWL group. The complication rate was 19% in both groups. The SWL complications were minor.
CONCLUSIONS: Stone clearance from the lower pole of solitary stones sized 15 to 20 mm at the greatest diameter following SWL is poorer. These calculi can be better managed with percutaneous surgery owing to its higher efficacy and acceptably low morbidity.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Lithotripsy; Percutaneous nephrostomy; Renal calculi

Year:  2013        PMID: 23614064      PMCID: PMC3630346          DOI: 10.4111/kju.2013.54.4.258

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Korean J Urol        ISSN: 2005-6737


  25 in total

1.  Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Yung-Shun Juan; Shu-Mien Chuang; Wen-Jeng Wu; Jung-Tsung Shen; Chii-Jye Wang; Chun-Hsiung Huang
Journal:  Kaohsiung J Med Sci       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.744

2.  Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  F J Sampaio; A H Aragao
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight.

Authors:  F J Sampaio; A H Aragao
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  K T Pace; N Tariq; S J Dyer; M J Weir; R J D'A Honey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium:yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi.

Authors:  Vincent Koo; Michael Young; Trevor Thompson; Brian Duggan
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2011-03-31       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Comparison of endoscopic and radiological residual fragment rate following percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.

Authors:  J D Denstedt; R V Clayman; D D Picus
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1991-04       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  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

8.  [Which is the best performing imaging method for demonstrating residual renal calculi?].

Authors:  O Gaucher; L Cormier; M Deneuville; D Régent; P Mangin; J Hubert
Journal:  Prog Urol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 0.915

9.  Does previous extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy affect the performance and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Emrah Yuruk; Ahmet Tefekli; Erhan Sari; Mert Ali Karadag; Abdulkadir Tepeler; Murat Binbay; Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2008-12-16       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Does ureteral stenting prior to shock wave lithotripsy influence the need for intervention in steinstrasse and related complications?

Authors:  M H Ather; B Shrestha; A Mehmood
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 2.089

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  A comparative study to analyze the efficacy and safety of flexible ureteroscopy combined with holmium laser lithotripsy for residual calculi after percutaneous nephrolithotripsy.

Authors:  Gang Xu; Jiaming Wen; Zhongyi Li; Zhewei Zhang; Xiuqing Gong; Jimin Chen; Chuanjun Du
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-03-15

3.  Validation of S.T.O.N.E nephrolithometry and Guy's stone score for predicting surgical outcome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Nasir Khan; Syed Muhammad Nazim; Muhammad Farhan; Basit Salam; Muhammad Hammad Ather
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2020-08-10

4.  Intrarenal Surgery vs Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy in the Management of Lower Pole Stones Greater than 2 cm.

Authors:  Hakan Koyuncu; Faruk Yencilek; Mehmet Kalkan; Yavuz Bastug; Esin Yencilek; Ahmet Tunc Ozdemir
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

5.  Prospective evaluation of outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy using the 'STONE' nephrolithometry score: A single-centre experience.

Authors:  Muhammad Farhan; Syed M Nazim; Basit Salam; M Hammad Ather
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2015-08-29
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.