Literature DB >> 24083332

Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system's anatomy.

Jan Peter Jessen1, Patrick Honeck, Thomas Knoll, Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of renal anatomy on the success rate of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) for lower pole stones is less clear than it is on shock wave lithotripsy, for which it is a recognized influence factor. We analyzed safety and efficiency of fURS using modern endoscopes for lower pole stones dependent on the collecting system's configuration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive sample of 111 fURS for lower pole stones at our tertiary care center between January 2010 and September 2012 from our prospectively kept database. All procedures were performed with modern flexible ureterorenoscopes, nitinol baskets, holmium laser lithotripsy, and ureteral access sheaths whenever needed. The infundibular length (IL) and width (IW) and infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) were measured and the data were stratified for stone-free status and complications classified by the Clavien-Dindo scale. Univariate and multifactorial statistical analyses were performed. Correlation of operation time (OR-time) with anatomical parameters was conducted.
RESULTS: Ninety-eight (88.3%) of the 111 patients were stone free after a single fURS. On multifactorial analysis, the stone size and IL had significant influence on the stone-free rate (SFR) (p<0.01), whereas IW did not. An acute IPA (<30°) also had significant influence (p=0.01). The incidence of complications and OR-time were not influenced by the pelvicaliceal anatomy.
CONCLUSIONS: fURS is a safe and efficient treatment option for lower pole kidney stones. A long infundibulum and a very acute IPA (<30°) negatively affect the SFR. However, with second look procedures, a complete stone clearance is achievable even in case of unfavorable anatomic conditions. A narrow infundibulum has no negative effect while using modern endoscopes. The complication rate is not affected by the collecting system's anatomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24083332     DOI: 10.1089/end.2013.0401

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


  27 in total

1.  [Application of machine learning models in predicting early stone-free rate after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for renal stones].

Authors:  X H Zhu; M Y Yang; H Z Xia; W He; Z Y Zhang; Y Q Liu; C L Xiao; L L Ma; J Lu
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2019-08-18

2.  Management behaviors of the urology practitioners to the small lower calyceal stones: the results of a web-based survey.

Authors:  Ferhat Ates; Murat Zor; Omer Yılmaz; Murat Tuncer; Metin Ozturk; Cenk Gurbuz; Gokhan Atis; Orhan Koca; Asif Yildirim; Bilal Eryildirim; Eyup Veli Kucuk; Fehmi Narter; Temucin Senkul; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 3.436

3.  Influence of the renal lower pole anatomy and mid-renal-zone classification in successful approach to the calices during flexible ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Bruno Marroig; Rodrigo Frota; Marco A Fortes; Francisco J Sampaio; Luciano Alves Favorito
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 4.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones - Part 2.

Authors:  Özcan Kılıç; Murat Akand; Ben Van Cleynenbreugel
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-08-01

5.  A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience : A better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones.

Authors:  G Bozzini; P Verze; D Arcaniolo; O Dal Piaz; N M Buffi; G Guazzoni; M Provenzano; B Osmolorskij; F Sanguedolce; E Montanari; N Macchione; K Pummer; V Mirone; M De Sio; G Taverna
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Comparison of two techniques for the management of 2-3 cm lower pole renal calculi in obese patients.

Authors:  Xiao Liu; Ding Xia; Ejun Peng; Yonghua Tong; Hailang Liu; Xinguang Wang; Yu He; Zhiqiang Chen; Kun Tang
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The glue-clot technique: a new technique description for small calyceal stone fragments removal.

Authors:  J Cloutier; E R Cordeiro; G M Kamphuis; L Villa; J Letendre; J J de la Rosette; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Optimizing Stone-free Rates With Ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Thanmaya G Reddy; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2015

9.  Lower pole anatomy and mid-renal-zone classification applied to flexible ureteroscopy: experimental study using human three-dimensional endocasts.

Authors:  Bruno Marroig; Luciano Alves Favorito; Marco A Fortes; Francisco J B Sampaio
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 1.246

10.  What is the exact definition of stone dust? An in vitro evaluation.

Authors:  Etienne Xavier Keller; Vincent De Coninck; Steeve Doizi; Michel Daudon; Olivier Traxer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04-08       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.