Journals / Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology / 2013 / Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2

Minimally invasive approaches and their efficacy in pediatric urolithiasis

Pediatrik taş hastalığında minimal invaziv yaklaşımlar ve etkinlikleri

Pages
111–115
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Currently, ESWL, PNL and URS are performed with high success rates for the treatment of stones, and open surgery is rarely used due to the success obtained with minimally invasive approaches.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We compared the frequency of usage and success of minimally invasive approaches in the man- agement of pediatric urolithiasis in our clinic.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and methods: Data from pediatric patients ≤16 years of age who had percutaneous nephrolithot- omy (PNL), ureterorenoscopy (URS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) between January 2001 and December 2011 were retrospectively investigated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Currently, ESWL, PNL and URS are performed with high success rates for the treatment of stones, and open surgery is rarely used due to the success obtained with minimally invasive approaches.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2001 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We compared the frequency of usage and success of minimally invasive approaches in the man- agement of pediatric urolithiasis in our clinic. Material and methods: Data from pediatric patients ≤16 years of age who had percutaneous nephrolithot- omy (PNL), ureterorenoscopy (URS), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) between January 2001 and December 2011 were retrospectively investigated. Results: In this study, 415 pediatric patients, who were treated for 291 renal stones and 124 ureteral stones, were evaluated. One hundred forty-eight patients (82 male, 66 female) were treated with PNL, 99 (58 male, 41 female) were treated with URS, and 168 (91 male, 77 female) were treated with ESWL. The mean patient ages were 7.3 (1-16), 9.1 (1-16), and 8.8 (1-16) in the PNL, URS, and ESWL groups, respectively. The stone- free rates after treatment with PNL, URS, and ESWL were 77%, 83.8% and 88.7%, respectively. Conclusion: It is important that selected therapies are properly planned, and the use of minimally invasive approaches is important in pediatric patients due to potentially high recurrence rates. Currently, ESWL, PNL and URS are performed with high success rates for the treatment of stones, and open surgery is rarely used due to the success obtained with minimally invasive approaches.

Özet

Amaç: Kliniğimizde, minimal invaziv tedavi yaklaşımlarının çocuk taş hastalarının tedavisinde kullanım sıklıkları ve başarılarını karşılaştırdık. Gereç ve yöntemler: Ocak 2001-Aralık 2011 yılları arasında perkütan nefrolitotomi (PNL), üreterorenos- kopi (URS) ile taş tedavisi ve extracorporial shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) yapılan 16 yaş ve altı pediatrik hastaların bilgileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. Bulgular: Mevcut çalışmada, 291 böbrek taşı ve 124 üreter taşının tedavi edildiği, 415 hasta değerlendi- rilmeye alındı. Hastaların 148’ine (82 erkek, 66 kız) PNL, 99’una (58 erkek, 41 kız) URS ile taş tedavisi ve 168’ine (91 erkek, 77 kız) ESWL uygulandı. PNL uygulanan hasta grubunda yaş ortalaması 7.3 (1-16) iken URS uygulananlarda 9.1 (1-16) ve ESWL uygulananlarda 8.8 (1-16) idi. PNL, URS ve ESWL ile tedavi sonrası sağlanan taşsızlık oranları sırasıyla %77, %83.8 ve %88.7 olarak bulundu. Sonuç: Çocuk hastalarda olası sık nüksler nedeniyle, seçilecek tedavinin doğru planlanması ve minimal invaziv tekniklerin kullanılması önemlidir. Şimdilerde ESWL, PNL ve URS ile taş tedavisinde yüksek başarı elde edilmektedir. Minimal invaziv tedavi yöntemleri ile sağlanan bu başarılı sonuçlar nedeniyle açık cerrahi yaklaşımlar artık neredeyse kullanılmamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALTINTAŞ, R., BEYTUR, A., OĞUZ, F., ÇİMEN, S., AKDEMİR, E., GÜNEŞ, A. (2013). Minimally invasive approaches and their efficacy in pediatric urolithiasis. Türk Üroloji Dergisi/Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 39 - Sayı: 2, 111–115. https://ajindex.com/articles/328043

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. Akıncı M, Esen T, Tellaloğlu S. Urinary stone disease in Turkey: an updated epidemiological study. Eur Urol 1991;20:200-3
  2. Trinchieri A, Coppi F, Montanari E, Del Nero A, Zanetti G, Pisani E. Increase in the prevalence of symptomatic upper urinary tract stones during the last ten years. Eur Urol 2000;37:23-5. [CrossRef] 3. Elliott D, Opas LM. Consultation with the specialist: Renal stones. Pediatr Rev 1999;20:280-2. [CrossRef] 4. Remzi D, Çakmak F, Erkan İ. A study on the urolithiasis incidence in Turkish school-age children. J Urol 1980;4:608
  3. Öner A, Demircin G, İpekçioğlu H, Bülbül M, Ecin N. Etiological and clinical patterns of urolithiasis in Turkish children. Eur Urol 1997;31:453-8 6. Matlaga BR, Assimos DG. Changing indications of open stone surgery. Urology 2002;59:490-4. [CrossRef] 7. Kane CJ, Bolton DM, Stoller ML. Current indications for open stone surgery in anendourology center. Urology 1995;45:218-21. [CrossRef] 8. Reisiger K, Vardi I, Yan Y, Don S, Coplen D, Austin P, et al. Pediatric nephrolithiazis: Does treatment affect renal growt. Urology 2007;69:1190-4. [CrossRef] 9. Frick J, Sarica K, Kohle R, Kunit G. Long-term follow up after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children. Eur Urol 1991;19:225-9
  4. Wadhwa P, Aron M, Bal SC, Dhanpatty B, Gupta NP. Critical prospective apraisal of renal morphology and function in children undergoing shockwave lithotripsy and percutaenous nephrolitho- tomy. J Endourol 2007;21:961-6. [CrossRef] 11. Webb DR, Fitzpatrick JJM. Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: a functional and morphological study. J Urol 1985;138:587-9
  5. Traxe O, Smith TG 3rd, Pearle MS, Corwin TS, Saboorian H, Cadeddu JA. Renal parenchymal injury after standart and mini per- cutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 2001;165:1693-5. [CrossRef] 13. Newman DM, Coury T, Lingeman JE, Mertz JHO, Mosbaugh PG, Steele RE, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy experience in children. J Urol 1986;136:238-40
  6. Muslumanoğlu AY, Tefekli A, Sarilar O, Binbay M, Altunrende F, Ozkuvanci U. Extracorporeal shock wave lithothripsy as first line treatment alternative for urinary tract stone in children: A large scale retrospective analysis. J Urol 2003;170:2405-8. [CrossRef] 15. Soygur T, Arikan N, Kilic O, Suer E. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: Evaluation of the results considering the need for auxiliary procedures. J Pediatr Urol 2006;2:459-63. [CrossRef] 16. Kurien A, Symons S, Manohar T, Desai M. Extracorporeal sho