Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 8/2023

Open Access 25-04-2023

Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones — Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?

Authors: Angus Luk, Robert Geraghty, Bhaskar Somani

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 8/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Small renal stones in the lower pole are often difficult to treat. The angle of the lower pole to the renal pelvis (lower pole angle) is a limiting factor to rendering the patient stone free. This review explores the definitions of the lower pole angle, the various treatment options available, and how outcomes are influenced by the angle.

Recent Findings

It is clear the lower pole angle definition varies widely depending on described technique and imaging modality. However, it is clear that outcomes are worse with a steeper angle, especially for shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Percutaneous nephrolithotomy has similar reported outcomes to RIRS, and there is limited evidence it may be superior for steeper angles over RIRS.

Summary

Lower pole stones can be technically challenging and adequate assessment prior to choosing operative approach is key.
Literature
1.
2.
•• McClinton S, Starr K, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Lam T, Hernandez R, Pickard R, Anson K, Clark T, MacLennan S, Thomas D, Smith D, Turney B, McDonald A, Cameron S, Wiseman O. The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol. Trials. 2020;21(1):479. Seminal trial for lower pole stones.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
Bagley DH, Rittenberg MH. Intrarenal dimensions. Guidelines for flexible ureteropyeloscopes. Surg Endosc. 1987;1(2):119–21.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1992;147(2):322–4.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sampaio FJ, D’Anunciação AL, Silva EC. Comparative follow-up of patients with acute and obtuse infundibulum-pelvic angle submitted to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: preliminary report and proposed study design. J Endourol. 1997;11(3):157–61.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, Clayman RV. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol. 1998;159(3):676–82.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Gupta NP, Singh DV, Hemal AK, Mandal S. Infundibulopelvic anatomy and clearance of inferior caliceal calculi with shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2000;163(1):24–7.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Manikandan R, Gall Z, Gunendran T, Neilson D, Adeyoju A. Do anatomic factors pose a significant risk in the formation of lower pole stones? Urology. 2007;69(4):620–4.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Rachid Filho D, Favorito LA, Costa WS, Sampaio FJ. Kidney lower pole pelvicaliceal anatomy: comparative analysis between intravenous urogram and three-dimensional helical computed tomography. J Endourol. 2009;23(12):2035–40.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Knoll T, Musial A, Trojan L, Ptashnyk T, Michel MS, Alken P, Köhrmann KU. Measurement of renal anatomy for prediction of lower-pole caliceal stone clearance: reproducibility of different parameters. J Endourol. 2003;17(7):447–51.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Xu Y, Lyu JL. The value of three-dimensional helical computed tomography for the retrograde flexible ureteronephroscopy in the treatment of lower pole calyx stones. Chronic Dis Transl Med. 2016;2(1):42–7.PubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Kallidonis P, Ntasiotis P, Somani B, Adamou C, Emiliani E, Knoll T, Skolarikos A, Tailly T. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and shock wave lithotripsy for lower pole renal stones less than 2 cm in maximum diameter. J Urol. 2020;204(3):427–33.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, Gao X, Peng Y, Xu C, Chen Q, Song R, Sun Y. Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol. 2015;29(7):745–59.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TB, McClinton S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol. 2015;67(4):612–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Sozen S, Kupeli B, Acar C, Gurocak S, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I. Significance of lower-pole pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy in nonobstructive isolated renal pelvic stones. J Endourol. 2008;22(5):877–81.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gurocak S, Kupeli B, Acar C, Tan MO, Karaoglan U, Bozkirli I. The impact of pelvicaliceal features on problematic lower pole stone clearance in different age groups. Int Urol Nephrol. 2008;40(1):31–7.CrossRefPubMed
17.
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;48(2):296–302; discussion 302.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Talas 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.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Fong YK, Peh SO, Ho SH, Ng FC, Quek PL, Ng KK. Lower pole ratio: a new and accurate predictor of lower pole stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy? Int J Urol. 2004;11(9):700–3.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Chan LH, Good DW, Laing K, Phipps S, Thomas BG, Keanie JY, Tolley DA, Cutress ML. Primary SWL is an efficient and cost-effective treatment for lower pole renal stones between 10 and 20 mm in size: a large single center study. J Endourol. 2017;31(5):510–6.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Arpali E, Altinel M, Sargin SY. The efficacy of radiographic anatomical measurement methods in predicting success after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones. Int Braz J Urol. 2014;40(3):337–45.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zilberman DE, Erlich T, Kleinmann N, Sabler IM, Neheman A, Verhovsky G. Changing trends in surgical management of nephrolithiasis among young adults: a 15-year population-based study. J Pers Med. 2022;12(8):1345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
24.
Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK. Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis. 2020;48(3):263–70.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
Somani BK, Al-Qahtani SM, de Medina SD, Traxer O. Outcomes of flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation for renal stones: comparison between digital and conventional ureteroscope. Urology. 2013;82(5):1017–9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Dragos LB, Somani BK, Sener ET, Buttice S, Proietti S, Ploumidis A, Iacoboaie CT, Doizi S, Traxer O. which flexible ureteroscopes (digital vs. fiber-optic) can easily reach the difficult lower pole calices and have better end-tip deflection: in vitro study on K-box. A PETRA Evaluation. J Endourol. 2017;31(7):630–7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Ozimek T, Cordes J, Wiessmeyer JR, Schneider MH, Hupe MC, Gilbert N, Merseburger AS, Kramer MW. Steep infundibulopelvic angle as a new risk factor for flexible ureteroscope damage and complicated postoperative course. J Endourol. 2018;32(7):597–602.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Ventimiglia E, Smyth N, Doizi S, Jiménez Godínez A, Barghouthy Y, Corrales Acosta MA, Kamkoum H, Somani B, Traxer O. Can the introduction of single-use flexible ureteroscopes increase the longevity of reusable flexible ureteroscopes at a high volume centre? World J Urol. 2022;40(1):251–6.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Hennessey DB, Fojecki GL, Papa NP, Lawrentschuk N, Bolton D. Single-use disposable digital flexible ureteroscopes: an ex vivo assessment and cost analysis. BJU Int. 2018;121(Suppl 3):55–61.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Jun DY, Cho KS, Jeong JY, Moon YJ, Kang DH, Jung HD, Lee JY. Comparison of surgical outcomes between single-use and reusable flexible ureteroscopes for renal stone management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(10):1388.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Deininger S, Haberstock L, Kruck S, Neumann E, da Costa IA, Todenhöfer T, Bedke J, Stenzl A, Rausch S. Single-use versus reusable ureterorenoscopes for retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS): systematic comparative analysis of physical and optical properties in three different devices. World J Urol. 2018;36(12):2059–63.CrossRefPubMed
33.
• Buell MI, Amasyali AS, Chen N, Belle JD, Keheila M, Baldwin EA, Ritchie C, Baldwin DD. Thulium versus holmium for in situ lower pole laser lithotripsy. Can J Urol. 2022;29(6):11371–7. Recent update on different laser systems.PubMed
34.
• Rice P, Somani BK, Nagele U, Herrmann TRW, Tokas T. Generated temperatures and thermal laser damage during upper tract endourological procedures using the holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser: a systematic review of experimental studies. World J Urol. 2022;40(8):1981–92. Recent update on different laser systems.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Moore SL, Bres-Niewada E, Cook P, Wells H, Somani BK. Optimal management of lower pole stones: the direction of future travel. Cent European J Urol. 2016;69(3):274–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Tsai SH, Chung HJ, Tseng PT, Wu YC, Tu YK, Hsu CW, Lei WT. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of shockwave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(10):e19403.CrossRefPubMed
37.
• Pillai SB, Chawla A, de la Rosette J, Laguna P, Guddeti R, Reddy SJ, Sabnis R, Ganpule A, Desai M, Parikh A. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) in the management of renal calculi ≤ 2 cm: a propensity matched study. World J Urol. 2022;40(2):553–62. Recent study with modern endoscopic techniques compared (miniPCNL vs ureteroscopy).CrossRefPubMed
38.
Coskun A, Eryildirim B, Sarica K, Çamur E, Can U, Saglam E. Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini PCNL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the minimal invasive management of lower caliceal stones. Urol J. 2021;18(5):485–90.PubMed
39.
Ozimek T, Laturnus JM, Gohlke C, Wiessmeyer JR, Struck JP, Hupe MC, Merseburger AS, Kramer MW. New computed tomographic predictors of complicated perioperative course of 17.5F mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PNL). World J Urol. 2021;39(6):2147–54.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Huang Y, Li K, Yang W, Li Z, Liu C, Lai C, He Y, Xu K. A scoring system for optimal selection of endoscopic treatment for 1–2cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol J. 2022;19(5):356–62.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones — Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?
Authors
Angus Luk
Robert Geraghty
Bhaskar Somani
Publication date
25-04-2023
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 8/2023
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-023-01161-w

Other articles of this Issue 8/2023

Current Urology Reports 8/2023 Go to the issue

ReviewPaper

Selection and Outcomes for Dissolution Therapy in Uric Acid Stones: A Systematic Review of Literature

ReviewPaper

Outcomes of Paediatric Cystine Stone Management: Results of a Systematic Review

Correction

Correction: Role, Cost, and Availably of Urinary pH Monitoring for Kidney Stone Disease—A Systematic Review of the Literature

ReviewPaper

Technical Aspects and Clinical Outcomes of Robotic Ureteroscopy: Is It Ready for Primetime?

ReviewPaper

Role of Bladder Functional Testing Prior to Surgeries for Benign Prostatic Obstruction

ReviewPaper

Role, Cost, and Availably of Urinary pH Monitoring for Kidney Stone Disease—A Systematic Review of the Literature