These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stones.
    Author: Onal B, Demirkesen O, Tansu N, Kalkan M, Altintaş R, Yalçin V.
    Journal: J Urol; 2004 Sep; 172(3):1082-6. PubMed ID: 15311043.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: The clearance rather than stone disintegration of lower pole stones after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is significantly inferior according to the other localizations of the kidney. We retrospectively evaluated the impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after SWL for pediatric lower pole stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 163 renal units (RUs) in children 16 years old or younger with SWL between March 1992 and February 2002. In 36 RUs stones were localized in the lower calices. All patients were treated with sedoanalgesia except 3 (8%) who were treated under general anesthesia. Patients were evaluated by excretory urography and ultrasonography 12 weeks after the last session, and were designated as stone-free or with residual stone. The lower infundibular length, width, length-to-width ratio, pelvic caliceal height and lower infundibulopelvic angle were determined on standard excretory urography before SWL. All measurements were done by 1 urologist who was unaware of the results. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square, Fisher's exact and Mann-Whitney U tests. ROC analysis was done to determine the cutoff points of caliceal anatomy measurements for stone clearance. RESULTS: We treated 36 RUs in 23 males and 10 females with isolated lower caliceal stones. Median patient age was 10.5 years (range 2 to 16). Median stone burden was 0.7 cm (range 0.2 to 4), and median number of shock waves and energy used for the entire patient population was 1,500 and 17.2 kV, respectively. Overall stone-free rates for the 36 RUs were 61% after a median treatment session of 1 (range 1 to 7) and retreatment rates were 39%. Of the patients rendered free of stones 13 (59%) were treated in a single SWL session and 9 (41%) underwent 2 or more sessions. Median lower infundibular length, width, length-to-width ratio and pelvic caliceal height in the stone-free and residual stone group were 25.5, 28.0 mm, 4.5, 5.0 mm, 6.4, 5.5 mm and 21.5, 21.5 mm, respectively (p = 0.810, 0.327, 0.511 and 0.511). Median lower infundibulopelvic angle in the stone-free and residual stone groups was 92.50 and 92.50 degrees, and 60.0 and 54.50 degrees, respectively (p = 0.860 and 0.089). On ROC analysis no parameter predicting stone-free rate and cutoff points of caliceal anatomy measurements for stone clearance was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that caliceal pelvic anatomy in pediatric lower pole stones has no significant impact on stone clearance after SWL. There was a highly significant relation between retreatment rates and stone burden, which should be considered for determining the treatment modality.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]