Literature DB >> 25081327

Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results.

Faruk Ozgor1, Abdulmuttalip Simsek, Murat Binbay, Tolga Akman, Onur Kucuktopcu, Omer Sarilar, Ahmet Yaser Muslumanoglu, Yalcin Berberoglu.   

Abstract

The characteristics of clinically insignificant residual fragments (CIRFs) are well described after percutaneous nephrolithonomy (PCNL) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). In follow-up procedures, CIRFs are associated with obstruction, infectious conditions, and recurrent stone development. In this study, we aim to determine the medium-term outcomes of CIRF. Between May 2009 and January 2013, 384 patients underwent flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS). In 44 patients, CIRFs were diagnosed with abdominal CT between 3 weeks and 3 months after the operation. Periodic follow-up, including clinical examination, serum biochemistry, urine culture, and radiological imaging, was performed for all patients. Also, 24 h urine analysis and stone composition were evaluated. Asymptomatic patients with stable stone sizes or patients with spontaneous clearance were classified in group 1 and patients with increasing stone sizes or those who became symptomatic were classified in group 2. The variables affecting stone recurrence between the two groups were compared. A total of 15 patients showed symptoms and/or stone development in the median 30.5 ± 8.809 months follow-up period. Additional treatment modalities-including F-URS in five patients, URS in three patients, SWL in two patients, and PCNL in one patient-were performed in 11 patients. The pre-operative stone burden and the number of patients with metabolic abnormalities were significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1. Medium-term follow-up of CIRF after F-URS demonstrated that recurrence is common within 2 years. The presence of a pre-operative high stone burden and metabolic abnormalities in 24 h urine analysis were predictive factors for stone recurrence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25081327     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0691-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  32 in total

Review 1.  Management of residual stones.

Authors:  F C Delvecchio; G M Preminger
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 2.241

Review 2.  Prevention and treatment of complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Andreas Skolarikos; Jean de la Rosette
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 2.309

3.  Stone-free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR.

Authors:  Bhaskar K Somani; Mahesh Desai; Olivier Traxer; Sven Lahme
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  G W Drach; S Dretler; W Fair; B Finlayson; J Gillenwater; D Griffith; J Lingeman; D Newman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Fate of clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy with EDAP LT-01 lithotripter.

Authors:  Y T Moon; S C Kim
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.942

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.  Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  J K Fine; C Y Pak; G M Preminger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1995-01       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  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

9.  Routine postoperative imaging is important after ureteroscopic stone manipulation.

Authors:  Alon Z Weizer; Brian K Auge; Ari D Silverstein; Fernando C Delvecchio; Ricardo M Brizuela; Philipp Dahm; Paul K Pietrow; Bertram R Lewis; David M Albala; Glenn M Preminger
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Authors:  Jinsung Park; Bumsik Hong; Taehan Park; Hyung Keun Park
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.942

View more
  8 in total

1.  Medium-term follow-up of clinically insignificant residual fragments after minimal invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prognostic features and risk factors.

Authors:  Xin Li; Long He; Jianzhong Li; Zhongyang Duan; Zijian Gao; Long Liu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-11-15

2.  Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: comparison of intraoperative assessment and postoperative non-contrast computerized tomography.

Authors:  Ahmed M Harraz; Yasser Osman; Ahmed R El-Nahas; Amr A Elsawy; Islam Fakhreldin; Osama Mahmoud; Ahmed El-Assmy; Ahmed A Shokeir
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-12-24       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 3.  Physical therapy in the management of stone fragments: progress, status, and needs.

Authors:  Suoshi Jing; Qiongyan Gai; Xin Zhao; Juan Wang; Yuwen Gong; Yangyang Pang; Chen Peng; Yuejun Tian; Yuhan Wang; Zhiping Wang
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.436

4.  Retrograde intrarenal surgery of renal stones: a critical multi-aspect evaluation of the outcomes by the Turkish Academy of Urology Prospective Study Group (ACUP Study).

Authors:  Selcuk Guven; Pakize Yigit; Altug Tuncel; İbrahim Karabulut; Selcuk Sahin; Ozcan Kilic; Mehmet Balasar; Ilker Seckiner; Erdem Canda; Mehmet Giray Sonmez; Tzevat Tefik; Mustafa Yucel Boz; Gokhan Atis; Giray Ergin; Mustafa Soytas; Çagdas Senel; Mustafa Kirac; Murat Can Kiremit; Murat Akand; Volkan Tugcu; Bulent Erkurt; Ahmet Muslumanoglu; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  Kidney stones.

Authors:  Saeed R Khan; Margaret S Pearle; William G Robertson; Giovanni Gambaro; Benjamin K Canales; Steeve Doizi; Olivier Traxer; Hans-Göran Tiselius
Journal:  Nat Rev Dis Primers       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 52.329

Review 6.  Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them.

Authors:  Simon Hein; Arkadiusz Miernik; Konrad Wilhelm; Fabian Adams; Daniel Schlager; Thomas R W Herrmann; Jens J Rassweiler; Martin Schoenthaler
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  Efficacy analysis of self-help position therapy after holmium laser lithotripsy via flexible ureteroscopy.

Authors:  Jie Yang; Rong-Zhen Tao; Pei Lu; Meng-Xing Chen; Xin-Kun Huang; Ke-Liang Chen; Ying-Heng Huang; Xiao-Rong He; Li-di Wan; Jing Wang; Xin Tang; Wei Zhang
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2018-05-08       Impact factor: 2.264

8.  External physical vibration lithecbole facilitating the expulsion of upper ureteric stones 1.0-2.0 cm after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective randomized trial.

Authors:  Rong-Zhen Tao; Qing-Lai Tang; Shuang Zhou; Chun-Ping Jia; Jian-Lin Lv
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 3.436

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.