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
Urolithiasis
Published in: Urolithiasis 3/2020

Open Access 01-06-2020 | Original Paper

Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature

Authors: Sulaiman Sadaf Karim, Luke Hanna, Robert Geraghty, Bhaskar K. Somani

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 3/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Controversies exist on the influence of lower pole anatomy (infundibular pelvic angle, IPA; infundibular length, IL; and infundibular width, IW) for success and outcomes related to the treatment of stones in the lower pole. We wanted to look at the role of lower pole anatomy to study clinical outcomes in patients treated for isolated lower pole stones (LPS) using retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS), and also perform a review to look at the published literature on the influence of pelvicalyceal anatomy on success with RIRS. Data were prospectively collected (June 2013–June 2016) for all patients who underwent RIRS for LPS, and the imaging was then retrospectively reviewed to calculate the IPA, IL and IW using the Elbahnasy method. A systematic review was also conducted for all English language articles between January 2000 and April 2018, reporting on the impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on RIRS. A total of 108 patients with LPS were included with a male to female ratio of 2:3 and a mean age of 54.7 years. The mean lower pole stone size was 9.3 mm (range 3–29 mm) and 102/108 (94.4%) patients were stone free (SF) at the end of their procedure. While steep IPA (< 30°), operative time duration and larger stone size were significant predictors of failure, the placement of ureteric access sheath, IW and IL did not influence treatment outcomes. Six studies (460 patients) met the inclusion criteria for our review. The IPA, IW, IL for failure ranged from 26° to 38°, 5.5–7 mm and 24–34 mm, respectively. The SFR ranged from 78 to 88% with a metaanalysis showing IPA as the most important predictor of treatment outcomes for LPS. Infundibular pelvic angle seems to be the most important predictor for the treatment of LPS using RIRS. Pelvicalyceal anatomy in conjunction with stone size and hardness seem to dictate the success, and decisions on the type of surgical interventions should reflect this.
Literature
1.
Geraghty R, Proietti S, Traxer O et al (2017) Worldwide impact of warmer seasons on the incidence of renal colic and kidney stone disease (KSD): evidence from a systematic review of literature. J Endourol 31(8):729–735CrossRef
2.
Rukin N, Siddiqui Z, Chedgy E et al (2017) Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: evidence from the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Database. Urol Int 98(4):391–396CrossRef
3.
Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Geraghty R et al (2017) Trends of ‘Urolithiasis: interventions, Simulation and Laser technology’ over the last 16 years (2000–2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review. WJU 35(11):1651–1658
4.
Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K et al (2016) EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69:475–482CrossRef
5.
Geraghty R, Burr J, Simmonds N et al (2015) Shock wave lithotripsy outcomes for lower pole and non-lower pole stones from a university teaching hospital: parallel group comparison during the same time period. Urol Ann 7(1):46–48CrossRef
6.
El-Assmy A, Abo-Elghar ME, El-Nahas AR et al (2008) Anatomic predictors of formation of lower caliceal calculi: is it the time for three-dimensional computed tomography urography? J Endourol 22(9):2175–2180CrossRef
7.
Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM et al (1998) Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 159(3):676–682CrossRef
8.
Graff J, Diederichs W, Schulze H (1988) Long-term follow up in 1,003 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy patients. J Urol 140(3):479–483CrossRef
9.
Burr J, Ishii H, Simmonds N et al (2015) Is flexible ureterorenoscopy and laser lithotripsy the new gold standard for lower pole renal stones when compared to shock wave lithotripsy: comparative outcomes from a University hospital over similar time period. Central Eur J Urology 68(2):183CrossRef
10.
Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis—initial results. J Urol 166(6):2072–2080CrossRef
11.
Raman JD, Pearle MS (2008) Management options for lower pole renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol 18(2):214–219CrossRef
12.
Sari S, Ozok HU, Topaloglu H et al (2017) The association of a number of anatomical factors with the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower calyceal stones. Urol J 14(4):4008–4014PubMed
13.
Kilicarslan H, Kaynak Y, Kordan Y et al (2015) Unfavorable anatomical factors influencing the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower pole renal calculi. Urol J 12(2):2065–2068PubMed
14.
Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB et al (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79(1):61–66CrossRef
15.
Martin F, Hoarau N, Lebdai S et al (2014) Impact of lower pole calculi in patients undergoing retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol 28(2):141–145CrossRef
16.
Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T et al (2014) Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28(2):146–151CrossRef
17.
Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S et al (2015) Influence of pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal stones. J Endourol 29(9):998–1005CrossRef
18.
Khan M, Lal M, Kash DP et al (2016) Anatomical factors predicting lower calyceal stone clearance after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Afr J Urol 22(2):96–100CrossRef
19.
Manikandan R, Gall Z, Gunendran T et al (2007) Do anatomic factors pose a significant risk in the formation of lower pole stones? Urology 69(4):620–624CrossRef
20.
Geavlete P, Multescu R, Geavlete B (2008) Influence of pyelocaliceal anatomy on the success of flexible ureteroscopic approach. J Endourol 22(10):2235–2240CrossRef
21.
Ghosh A, Oliver R, Way C et al (2017) Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years. World J Urol 35(11):1757–1764CrossRef
22.
23.
Corp IBM (2016) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. IBM Corp, Armonk
24.
Sampaio F, Mandarim-De-Lacerda C (1988) Anatomic classification of the kidney collecting system for endourologic procedures. J Endourol 2(3):247–251CrossRef
25.
Higgins J, Green S (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane book series. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRef
26.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097CrossRef
27.
Ozimek T, Cordes J, Wiessmeyer J et al (2018) Steep infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) as a new risk factor for flexible ureteroscope damage and complicated postoperative course. Eur Urol Suppl 17(4):e2005CrossRef
28.
Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D et al (2016) ‘Mini, ultra, micro’–nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol 8(2):142–146CrossRef
29.
Jones P, Elmussareh M, Aboumarzouk O et al (2018) Role of minimally invasive (micro and ultra mini) PCNL for adult urinary stone disease in the modern era: evidence from a systematic review. Curr Urol Reports 19(4):27CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
Authors
Sulaiman Sadaf Karim
Luke Hanna
Robert Geraghty
Bhaskar K. Somani
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 3/2020
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0

Other articles of this Issue 3/2020

Urolithiasis 3/2020 Go to the issue

Letter to the Editor

Successful removal of an encrusted metallic ureteral stent using a disposable ureteroscope and Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy

Original Paper

Evaluation of day-care versus inpatient mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a propensity score-matching study

Original Paper

Kidney volume loss following percutaneous nephrolithotomy utilizing 3D planimetry

Original Paper

Ultrasound-guided low thoracic paravertebral block versus peritubal infiltration for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a prospective randomized study

Original Paper

Better sleep quality could reinforce the relationship between sleep posture and kidney stone laterality in obstructive sleep apnea patients

Original Paper

The microbiome of calcium-based urinary stones