Literature DB >> 9607435

Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy.

A M Elbahnasy1, R V Clayman, A L Shalhav, D M Hoenig, P Chandhoke, J E Lingeman, J D Denstedt, R Kahn, D G Assimos, S Y Nakada.   

Abstract

Spatial anatomy of the lower renal pole, as defined by the infundibulopelvic angle (LIP angle), infundibular length (IL), and infundibular width (IW), plays a significant role in the stone-free rate after shockwave lithotripsy. A wide LIP angle, a short IL, and a broad IW, individually or in combination, favor stone clearance, whereas a LIP <70 degrees, an IL >3 cm, or an IW < or =5 mm are individually unfavorable. When all three unfavorable factors or an unfavorable LIP and IL coexist, the post-SWL stone-free rate falls to 50% or less. Using these criteria, more than one fourth of our patients with a lower-pole calculus might have been better served by an initial percutaneous or perhaps ureteroscopic procedure, neither of which is significantly affected by the lower-pole spatial anatomy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9607435     DOI: 10.1089/end.1998.12.113

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Aspects on how extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy should be carried out in order to be maximally effective.

Authors:  Hans-Göran Tiselius; Christian G Chaussy
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2012-06-27

2.  Adjunctive therapy to promote stone passage.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Nuss; Judson D Rackley; Dean G Assimos
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

3.  Investigations for recognizing urinary stone.

Authors:  Gayathri Varma; Nandu Nair; Abiya Salim; Y M Fazil Marickar
Journal:  Urol Res       Date:  2009-10-14

4.  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

5.  Prospective randomized comparison between superior calyceal access versus inferior calyceal access in PCNL for inferior calyceal stones with or without pelvic stones.

Authors:  Vishwajeet Singh; Yogesh Garg; Kuldeep Sharma; Rahul Janak Sinha; Saurabh Gupta
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-07-19       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 6.  Strategies to optimize shock wave lithotripsy outcome: Patient selection and treatment parameters.

Authors:  Michelle Jo Semins; Brian R Matlaga
Journal:  World J Nephrol       Date:  2015-05-06

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

Authors:  Naveed Haroon; Syed M Nazim; M Hammad Ather
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2013-04-16

8.  Comparison of retrograde intrarenal surgery and mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of smaller than 15 mm.

Authors:  Mustafa Kirac; Ömer Faruk Bozkurt; Lutfi Tunc; Cagri Guneri; Ali Unsal; Hasan Biri
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 9.  Ureteroscopy for the management of stone disease.

Authors:  Brian H Eisner; Michael P Kurtz; Stephen P Dretler
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 14.432

10.  The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Authors:  Vera Y Chung; Benjamin W Turney
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.