Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Urolithiasis 4/2016

01-08-2016 | Original Paper

Management of anterior caliceal stones >15 mm

Authors: M. El-Shazly, M. Aziz, M. Omar, O. Al-Hunaidi, A. R. EL-Nahas

Published in: Urolithiasis | Issue 4/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Anterior caliceal stones represent a challenge to endourologist to select the best modality of management with the least morbidity. To study different treatment modalities of management of anterior caliceal stones >15 mm. It is an observational prospective study of patients with anterior caliceal stones more than 15 mm. Inclusion criteria were patients with isolated anterior caliceal stones, or branched anterior caliceal stones with posterior caliceal extension. Patients were evaluated using non-contrast CT preoperatively. They were divided into three groups: group 1 underwent PCNL through posterior caliceal puncture in cases with wide anterior calyx infundibulum or obtuse infundibulopelvic pelvic, group 2 underwent PCNL through anterior caliceal access in cases with narrow infundibulum or acute infundibulopelvic angel and group 3 underwent flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy. Intraoperative and postoperative findings were recorded and compared. Eighty eight patients were included in this study, Group 1 (44 patients) group 2 (28 patients), and group 3 (16 patients). Operative time was not significantly different across the three groups (68 ± 11.5, 72 ± 9 and 74 ± 11 min in group 1, 2 and 3, respectively, P = 0.053). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter for group 3 (2 ± 0.5 m, P = 0.0001) compared to group 1 and 2 (5.6 ± 4.6 and 4.5 ± 1.4 min), respectively. There were no significant differences in stone-free rates after initial treatment between the three groups; 84, 82, and 69 %, in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P = 0.4). Postoperative hemoglobin drop was noted to be highest for group 2 and lowest for group 3 which was significantly different (1.7 ± 0.8, 2.2 ± 1.1, and 0.3 ± 0.3 g/dl, for patients in groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively, P = 0.0001). Group 2 showed the highest post-operative complication rate (21 %) in comparison to group 1 (11 %) and group 3 (6 %), however, differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.3). PCNL through posterior or anterior caliceal puncture is an excellent modality to treat anterior caliceal stones with high stone clearance rate. Despite the higher chance of bleeding with anterior caliceal puncture, it is still inevitably needed in difficult anterior caliceal stones with unfavorable anatomy. RIRS is a good alternative to PCNL with the advantage of less radiation exposure and less bleeding.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10(3):25 Fernstrom I, Johansson B (1976) Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique. Scand J Urol Nephrol 10(3):25
2.
go back to reference Deane LA, Clayman RV (2007) Advances in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Clin N Am 34(3):383–395CrossRef Deane LA, Clayman RV (2007) Advances in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urol Clin N Am 34(3):383–395CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, Yazici O, Sari E, Erbin A, Kezer C, Sarilar O, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu A (2011) Does pelvicaliceal system anatomy affect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urology 78(4):733–777CrossRefPubMed Binbay M, Akman T, Ozgor F, Yazici O, Sari E, Erbin A, Kezer C, Sarilar O, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu A (2011) Does pelvicaliceal system anatomy affect success of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urology 78(4):733–777CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Adanur S, Ziypak T (2014) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy in treatment with shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy of lower pole renal stones. Urolithiasis 42(4):373CrossRefPubMed Adanur S, Ziypak T (2014) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy in treatment with shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy of lower pole renal stones. Urolithiasis 42(4):373CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Silay MS, Ozyuvali E, Ersoz C, Akcay M, Akman T, Armagan A, Unsal A (2013) Is the percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure complicated in patients with anterior caliceal stones? Urol Int 90(4):389–393CrossRefPubMed Tepeler A, Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Silay MS, Ozyuvali E, Ersoz C, Akcay M, Akman T, Armagan A, Unsal A (2013) Is the percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure complicated in patients with anterior caliceal stones? Urol Int 90(4):389–393CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, Oztuna D, Unsal A (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79(1):61–66CrossRefPubMed Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, Oztuna D, Unsal A (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79(1):61–66CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Brödel M (1901) The intrinsic blood-vessels of the kidney and their significance in nephrotomy. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 12:10 Brödel M (1901) The intrinsic blood-vessels of the kidney and their significance in nephrotomy. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp 12:10
9.
go back to reference Ko R, Soucy F, Denstedt JD, Razvi H (2008) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy made easier: a practical guide, tips and tricks. BJU Int 101(5):535–539CrossRefPubMed Ko R, Soucy F, Denstedt JD, Razvi H (2008) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy made easier: a practical guide, tips and tricks. BJU Int 101(5):535–539CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Eisner BH, Cloyd J, Stoller MM (2009) Lower-pole fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous renal access: which calyx is posterior? J Endourol 23(10):1621–1625CrossRefPubMed Eisner BH, Cloyd J, Stoller MM (2009) Lower-pole fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous renal access: which calyx is posterior? J Endourol 23(10):1621–1625CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Zilberman DE, Raymundo ME, Yong D, Ferrandino MN, Miller MJ, Yoshizumi TT, Perminger GM (2011) Reduced radiation exposure with the use of an air retrograde pyelogram during fluoroscopic access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25(4):563–567CrossRefPubMed Lipkin ME, Mancini JG, Zilberman DE, Raymundo ME, Yong D, Ferrandino MN, Miller MJ, Yoshizumi TT, Perminger GM (2011) Reduced radiation exposure with the use of an air retrograde pyelogram during fluoroscopic access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 25(4):563–567CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Perminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34(2):108–111CrossRef Perminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 34(2):108–111CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Saad KS, Youssif ME, Hamdy SA, Fahmy A, Hanno AG, El-Nahas AR (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of large renal stones (>2 cm) in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.101 Saad KS, Youssif ME, Hamdy SA, Fahmy A, Hanno AG, El-Nahas AR (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) versus retrograde intra-renal surgery (RIRS) in treatment of large renal stones (>2 cm) in pediatric patients: a randomized controlled study. J Urol. doi:10.​1016/​j.​juro.​2015.​06.​101
15.
go back to reference Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135CrossRefPubMed Bozkurt OF, Resorlu B, Yildiz Y et al (2011) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of lower-pole renal stones with a diameter of 15 to 20 mm. J Endourol 25(7):1131–1135CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Management of anterior caliceal stones >15 mm
Authors
M. El-Shazly
M. Aziz
M. Omar
O. Al-Hunaidi
A. R. EL-Nahas
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Urolithiasis / Issue 4/2016
Print ISSN: 2194-7228
Electronic ISSN: 2194-7236
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-015-0851-8

Other articles of this Issue 4/2016

Urolithiasis 4/2016 Go to the issue