Korean J Urol.  2013 Apr;54(4):258-262.

Optimal Management of Lower Polar Calyceal Stone 15 to 20 mm

• Haroon N
• Nazim SM
• Ather MH

Abstract

PURPOSE
To compare the stone clearance rate, efficiency quotient (EQ), and early complications of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for solitary lower-pole renal stones measuring 15 to 20 mm.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a retrospective matched-pair analysis of 142 patients (78 in the SWL and 64 in the PCNL group). Preoperative imaging was done by use of noncontrast computed tomography (CT kidney, ureter, and bladder [KUB]), intravenous urogram, or plain X-ray and ultrasound KUB to assess the largest dimension of the stones. Only patients with radiopaque stones were included. The stone-free rates were assessed with plain X-ray and ultrasound at 4 weeks. Data were analyzed by use of SPSS ver. 19.
RESULTS
The patients' demographic profiles (age, body mass index) and the stone sizes were comparable in the two groups. The mean stone size was 17.4+/-2.12 in the PCNL group compared with 17.67+/-2.04 in the SWL group (p=0.45). At 4 weeks, 83% of patients undergoing PCNL were stone-free compared with 51% in the SWL group (p<0.001). The EQ for the PCNL group was 76% compared with 44% for the SWL group (p<0.001). Ancillary procedures were required by 9% of patients in the PCNL group compared with 15% in the SWL group. The complication rate was 19% in both groups. The SWL complications were minor.
CONCLUSIONS
Stone clearance from the lower pole of solitary stones sized 15 to 20 mm at the greatest diameter following SWL is poorer. These calculi can be better managed with percutaneous surgery owing to its higher efficacy and acceptably low morbidity.

Keyword

Lithotripsy; Percutaneous nephrostomy; Renal calculi

MeSH Terms

Calculi
Humans
Kidney
Kidney Calculi
Lithotripsy
Matched-Pair Analysis
Nephrostomy, Percutaneous
Retrospective Studies
Shock
Ureter
Urinary Bladder

Reference

1. Ather MH, Abid F, Akhtar S, Khawaja K. Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy - the controversy continues. BMC Urol. 2003. 3:1.

2. 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. 40:31–37.

3. Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, et al. Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol. 1998. 159:676–682.

4. Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 1992. 147:322–324.

5. Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E, Akman T, Altinyay E, Baykal M, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol. 2010. 183:1424–1428.

6. Turk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C. Guidelines on Urolithiasis. Update March 2011 [Internet]. 2011. cited 2011 Jan 25. Arnhem: European Association of Urology;Available from: http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/18_Urolithiasis.pdf.

7. Chaussy C, Fuchs G. Extracorporeal lithotripsy in the treatment of renal lithiasis. 5 years' experience. J Urol (Paris). 1986. 92:339–343.

8. Ruggera L, Beltrami P, Ballario R, Cavalleri S, Cazzoletti L, Artibani W. Impact of anatomical pielocaliceal topography in the treatment of renal lower calyces stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Int J Urol. 2005. 12:525–532.

9. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol. 2001. 166:2072–2080.

10. Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Chandhoke P, Lingeman JE, et al. Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy. J Endourol. 1998. 12:113–119.

11. Juan YS, Chuang SM, Wu WJ, Shen JT, Wang CJ, Huang CH. Impact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2005. 21:358–364.

12. Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH. Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: anatomic insight. J Endourol. 1994. 8:241–247.

13. Glowacki LS, Beecroft ML, Cook RJ, Pahl D, Churchill DN. The natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis. J Urol. 1992. 147:319–321.

14. Inci K, Sahin A, Islamoglu E, Eren MT, Bakkaloglu M, Ozen H. Prospective long-term followup of patients with asymptomatic lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol. 2007. 177:2189–2192.

15. Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B, Nyhuis AW, Woods JR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis. J Urol. 1994. 151:663–667.

16. Ather MH, Shrestha B, Mehmood A. Does ureteral stenting prior to shock wave lithotripsy influence the need for intervention in steinstrasse and related complications? Urol Int. 2009. 83:222–225.

17. Chiong E, Hwee ST, Kay LM, Liang S, Kamaraj R, Esuvaranathan K. Randomized controlled study of mechanical percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy to assist passage of lower pole renal calculi after shock wave lithotripsy. Urology. 2005. 65:1070–1074.

18. Pace KT, Tariq N, Dyer SJ, Weir MJ, D'A Honey RJ. Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2001. 166:2065–2071.

19. Yuruk E, Tefekli A, Sari E, Karadag MA, Tepeler A, Binbay M, et al. Does previous extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy affect the performance and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Urol. 2009. 181:663–667.

20. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res. 2006. 34:108–111.

21. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol. 2008. 179:5 Suppl. S69–S73.

22. Kanao K, Nakashima J, Nakagawa K, Asakura H, Miyajima A, Oya M, et al. Preoperative nomograms for predicting stone-free rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol. 2006. 176(4 Pt 1):1453–1456.

23. Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int. 2011. 108:1913–1916.

24. Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Picus DD. Comparison of endoscopic and radiological residual fragment rate following percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Urol. 1991. 145:703–705.

25. Gaucher O, Cormier L, Deneuville M, Regent D, Mangin P, Hubert J. Which is the best performing imaging method for demonstrating residual renal calculi. Prog Urol. 1998. 8:493–501.

26. Lehtoranta K, Mankinen P, Taari K, Rannikko S, Lehtonen T, Salo J. Residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy; sensitivities of different imaging methods in renal stone detection. Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1995. 84:43–49.