Literature DB >> 2393803

Treatment of caliceal calculi.

W Hübner1, P Porpaczy.   

Abstract

We analysed the course of 80 "stone periods" (the time that elapses between making a diagnosis and passage of a stone, operation, or an out-patient's last check-up) in 62 patients with caliceal stones prior to the development of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endourology. The observation time per patient averaged 7.4 years; 16% of the stones passed spontaneously and 40% were removed surgically. The infection rate was 68% and 45% of the stones increased in size during the observation period. Retrospective evaluation showed that of 32 patients who underwent surgery, only 11 procedures were performed at the appropriate time. In the remaining 21 cases the timing of surgery was judged to have been too late because of the ensuing complications. In 8 patients stone growth led to staghorn calculi, 8 had acute obstruction with incipient urosepsis, 3 had chronic urinary infection and 1 had loss of kidney function. We believe that 83% of all caliceal stones require intervention (ESWL or percutaneous nephrolithotomy) within 5 years of diagnosis. Only 11% of patients with caliceal calculi remain symptom-free after 10 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2393803     DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1990.tb14854.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Urol        ISSN: 0007-1331


  12 in total

Review 1.  [Controversy on lower pole stones: monitor or intervene?].

Authors:  A Häcker; M S Michel
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 0.639

Review 2.  Appropriate kidney stone size for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: When to switch to a percutaneous approach.

Authors:  Ryoji Takazawa; Sachi Kitayama; Toshihiko Tsujii
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-02-06

Review 3.  [Lower pole calyceal stones].

Authors:  U Nagele; T Knoll; D Schilling; M S Michel; A Stenzl
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  [Calyceal stones].

Authors:  C Netsch; A J Gross
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 0.639

5.  Changing patient and stone features for shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in Turkey.

Authors:  Y Ilker; T Tarcan; F Simşek; A Akdaş
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 6.  Role of conservative management of stones.

Authors:  Kesavapillai Subramonian; Hector Sandoval Barba; Maitrey Darrad
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2020-11-01

7.  MiniJFil®: A New Safe and Effective Stent for Well-Tolerated Repeated Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy or Ureteroscopy for Medium-to-Large Kidney Stones?

Authors:  Benoit Vogt; Francois-Noel Desfemmes; Arnaud Desgrippes; Yves Ponsot
Journal:  Nephrourol Mon       Date:  2016-08-13

8.  Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy - the controversy continues.

Authors:  M Hammad Ather; Fuad Abid; Sobia Akhtar; Karim Khawaja
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2003-01-21       Impact factor: 2.264

9.  Retrograde upper-pole calyceal access for percutaneous nephrolithotripsy of stones in the lower-pole calyx.

Authors:  Khalid M Al-Otaibi
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2012-09-23

10.  Managing caliceal stones.

Authors:  Andreas J Gross; Sophie Knipper; Christopher Netsch
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.