Shock-wave lithotripsy for lower calyceal stones 1to2 centimetres in size - Out-dated or still standard of care
Abstract
Introduction - Shock-wave lithotripsy is
the traditional treatment for lower calyceal
stones 1-2cm in size however newer
options are emerging. We performed this
study to determine the efficacy of lithotripsy
in this category of patients and to
determine whether anatomical factors
played any role. Methods - All adult patients
with solitary lower calyceal stones
1-2cm in size undergoing lithotripsy in
the calendar year 2012 were included.
Success was defined as complete clearance
or presence of clinically insignificant
residual fragments 4mm. Anatomic
factors studied were calyceal length, infundibular
width, indundibulo-pelvic angle
and presence of compound calyces. Results
- A total of 37 cases were included.
Overall success rate was 64.8percent at
4 weeks with over half achieving complete
clearance. Effectiveness quotient
was 35.1percent. There was no significant
effect of anatomical factors and only
3 patients required ancillary procedures.
Conclusion -
Lithotripsy remains a safe and effective option
for this class of patients. Anatomical
factors did not predict clearance in our
study.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
B R Matlaga, J E Lingeman. Surgical
management of upper urinary
tract calculi. Campbell-Walsh Urol.
th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier
Saunders; 2012. p. 1357–410.
Preminger GM. Management of
lower pole renal calculi: shock wave
lithotripsy versus percutaneous
nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy.
Urol. Res. 2006 Apr;34
(2):108–11.
Mishra S, Sharma R, Garg C, Kurien
A, Sabnis R, Desai M. Prospective
comparative study of miniperc
and standard PNL for treatment of 1
to 2 cm size renal stone. Bju Int. 2011
Sep;108(6):896–899; discussion 899–
Turna B, Ekren F, Nazli O, Akbay K,
Altay B, Ozyurt C, et al. Comparative
results of shockwave lithotripsy for renal
calculi in upper, middle, and lower
calices. J. Endourol. Endourol. Soc.
Sep;21(9):951–6.
Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat
B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal
shock wave lithotripsy
(ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy
(PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal
surgery (RIRS) for kidney
stones. Cochrane Database Syst.
Rev. Online. 2009;(4):CD007044.
Khalil MM. Which is more important
in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal
shockwave lithotripsy of solitary
renal stones: stone location or
stone burden? J. Endourol. Endourol.
Soc. 2012 May;26(5):535–9.
Sorensen CM, Chandhoke PS. Is
lower pole caliceal anatomy predictive
of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
success for primary lower pole
kidney stones? J. Urol. 2002 Dec;168
(6):2377–2382; discussion 2382.
Ghoneim IA, Ziada AM, Elkatib SE.
Predictive factors of lower calyceal
stone clearance after Extracorporeal
Shockwave Lithotripsy (ESWL): a focus
on the infundibulopelvic anatomy.
Eur. Urol. 2005 Aug;48(2):296–302;
discussion 302.
alas H, Kilic O, Tangal S, Safak M.
Does lower-pole caliceal anatomy predict
stone clearance after shock wave
lithotripsy for primary lower-pole nephrolithiasis?
Urol. Int. 2007;79(2):129–32.
Sabnis RB, Naik K, Patel SH, Desai
MR, Bapat SD. Extracorporeal shock
wave lithotripsy for lower calyceal
stones: can clearance be predicted? Br.
J. Urol. 1997 Dec;80(6):853–7.
Tuckey J, Devasia A, Murthy L,
Ramsden P, Thomas D. Is there a simpler
method for predicting lower pole
stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy
than measuring infundibulopelvic
angle? J. Endourol. Endourol. Soc. 2000
Aug;14(6):475–8.
Viswaroop B, Devasia A, Gnanaraj L,
Chacko N, Kekre N, Gopalakrishnan G.
Radiographic anatomical factors do not
predict clearance of lower caliceal calculus
by shock-wave lithotripsy. Scand. J.
Urol. Nephrol. 2005;39(3):226–9.
Danuser H, Müller R, Descoeudres
B, Dobry E, Studer UE. Extracorporeal
shock wave lithotripsy of lower calyx calculi:
how much is treatment outcome
influenced by the anatomy of the collecting
system? Eur. Urol. 2007 Aug;52
(2):539–46.
Sahinkanat T, Ekerbicer H, Onal B,
Tansu N, Resim S, Citgez S, et al.
Evaluation of the effects of relationships
between main spatial lower pole calyceal
anatomic factors on the success of
shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with
lower pole kidney stones. Urology. 2008
May;71(5):801–5.P
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
An Initiative of The Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University