Journals / İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Tıp Dergisi / 2022 / Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2

The Effect of Pelvicalyceal Anatomy on the Success of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Treatment of Lower Pole Calyceal Stones

Pelvikalisiyel Anatominin Alt Pol Kaliks Taşlarının Tedavisinde Retrogradİntrarenal Cerrahinin Başarısına Etkisi

Pages
195–201
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

Successful treatment was defined as absence of residual fragments or a fragment

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of pelvicalyceal anatomy on the success of RIRS performed to treat lower pole stones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: A total of 164 patients with lower calyceal stones were analyzed retrospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Successful treatment was defined as absence of residual fragments or a fragment
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of pelvicalyceal anatomy on the success of RIRS performed to treat lower pole stones. Method: A total of 164 patients with lower calyceal stones were analyzed retrospectively. Besides demographic characteristics of the patients; size (diameter) and density (HU) of the stones, upper ureter diameter, infundibular width (IW), length (IL) and height (IH), and infundibular pelvic angle (IPA) measured in CT scans were recorded. Successful treatment was defined as absence of residual fragments or a fragment

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, alt pol taşlarını tedavi etmek için yapılan retrograd intrarenal cerrahinin başarısına pelvikalisiyel anatominin etkilerini değerlendirmektir. Yöntem: Alt kaliks taşı olan toplam 164 hasta çalışmaya dahil edildi. Hastaların sosyodemografik özelliklerinin yanı sıra taşların boyutu (çap) ve yoğunluğu, üst üreter çapı, infundibular genişlik, infundibular uzunluk ve infundibular yükseklik, bilgisayarlı tomografide ölçülen infundibular pelvik açı kaydedildi. Başarılı tedavi, takipte rezidüel fragmanların olmaması veya < 4 mm fragman olması şeklinde tanımlandı. Bulgular: Hastaların yaş ortalaması 43,36±12,21 yıldır. Erkek/kadın oranı 40/124’tür. Ortalama taş boyutu 13,12 mm olarak ölçüldü. Ortalama üst üreter çapı 5,58±2,45 (min-maks: 2–19) mm, infundibular genişlik 6,77±2,55 (min-maks: 3–18) mm, infundibular uzunluk 20,33±4,24 (min-maks: 8–35) mm, infundibular yükseklik 17,99±5,22 (min-maks: 9–40) mm ve infundibular pelvik açı 46,99±12,10 (min-maks: 25–96) derece olarak ölçüldü. Taşsızlık oranı taş yokluğu veya

🔖

Cite This Article

TAŞ, T., ÇAKIROĞLU, B., AKSOY, S. H., SİNANOĞLU, O. (2022). The Effect of Pelvicalyceal Anatomy on the Success of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in the Treatment of Lower Pole Calyceal Stones. İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Tıp Dergisi, Cilt: 14 - Sayı: 2, 195–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/550894

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Deepika RM, Ravisankar P, Priya JD, Surekha P, Sushmitha G, Tejaswi V, et al. Renal calculi: A comprehensive review. Indian J Res Pharm Biotechnol 2018;6:30–4
  2. McClinton S, Starr K, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Lam T, Hernandez R, et al. 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;21:479
  3. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475–82
  4. Geraghty R, Burr J, Simmonds N, Somani BK. 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 2015;7:46–8
  5. El-Assmy A, Abo-Elghar ME, El-Nahas AR, Youssef RF, El-Diasty T, Sheir KZ. Anatomic predictors of formation of lower caliceal calculi: Is it the time for three-dimensional computed tomography urography? J Endourol 2008;22:2175–9
  6. Gallioli A, De Lorenzis E, Boeri L, Delor M, Zanetti SP, Longo F, et al. Clinical utility of computed tomography Hounsfield characterization for percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A cross-sectional study. BMC Urol 2017;17:104
  7. Süelözgen T, İşoğlu CS, Karabıçak M, Yalçın MY, Yeni S, İlbey YÖ. Our retrograde intrarenal surgery experience with horseshoe kidney. J Urol Surg 2017;4:106–8
  8. Inoue T, Okada S, Hamamoto S, Fujisawa M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery: Past, present, and future. Investig Clin Urol 2021;62:121–35
  9. Rukin NJ, Siddiqui ZA, Chedgy ECP, Somani BK. Trends in upper tract stone disease in England: Evidence from the hospital episodes statistics database. Urol Int 2017;98:391–6
  10. Van Cleynenbreugel B, Kılıç Ö, Akand M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal stones - Part 1. Turk J Urol 2017;43:112–21
  11. Xiao Y, Li D, Chen L, Xu Y, Zhang D, Shao Y, et al. The R.I.R.S. scoring system: An innovative scoring system for predicting stone-free rate following retrograde intrarenal surgery. BMC Urol 2017;17:105
  12. Boonyapalanant C, Saksirisampant P, Taweemonkongsap T, Leewansangtong S, Srinualnad S, Chotikawanich E. Factors impacting stonefree rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery for calyceal diverticular calculi. Res Rep Urol 2020;12:345–50
  13. Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK