Management of anterior caliceal stones >15 mm

Affiliations

08 January 2016

-

doi: 10.1007/s00240-015-0851-8


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.

Keywords: Anterior; Pcnl; Renal; Stones.


Similar articles

The impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stones.

Onal B, Demirkesen O, Tansu N, Kalkan M, Altintaş R, Yalçin V.J Urol. 2004 Sep;172(3):1082-6. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000135670.83076.5c.PMID: 15311043

Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy.

Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, Clayman RV.J Urol. 1998 Mar;159(3):676-82.PMID: 9474124

Endoscopic management of symptomatic caliceal diverticula: a retrospective comparison of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and ureteroscopy.

Auge BK, Munver R, Kourambas J, Newman GE, Preminger GM.J Endourol. 2002 Oct;16(8):557-63. doi: 10.1089/089277902320913233.PMID: 12470462

Percutaneous management of caliceal diverticula: a narrative review.

Dean NS, Guo JN, Krambeck AE.Curr Opin Urol. 2023 Jul 1;33(4):333-338. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000001086. Epub 2023 Mar 2.PMID: 36861758 Review.

Percutaneous management of caliceal diverticula.

Schwartz BF, Stoller ML.Urol Clin North Am. 2000 Nov;27(4):635-45. doi: 10.1016/s0094-0143(05)70113-0.PMID: 11098762 Review.


KMEL References


References

  1.  
    1. Urology. 2012 Jan;79(1):61-6 - PubMed
  2.  
    1. BJU Int. 2008 Mar;101(5):535-9 - PubMed
  3.  
    1. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1976;10 (3):257-9 - PubMed
  4.  
    1. Urolithiasis. 2014 Aug;42(4):373 - PubMed
  5.  
    1. J Endourol. 2011 Jul;25(7):1131-5 - PubMed
  6.  
    1. Br J Urol. 1972 Apr;44(2):246-61 - PubMed
  7.  
    1. Urol Res. 2006 Apr;34(2):108-11 - PubMed
  8.  
    1. J Endourol. 2011 Apr;25(4):563-7 - PubMed
  9.  
    1. Urology. 2011 Oct;78(4):733-7 - PubMed
  10.  
    1. Urol Clin North Am. 2007 Aug;34(3):383-95 - PubMed
  11.  
    1. J Endourol. 2009 Oct;23 (10 ):1621-5 - PubMed
  12.  
    1. Urol Int. 2013;90(4):389-93 - PubMed