TY - JOUR
T1 - Stone clearance in lower pole nephrolithiasis after extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy - The controversy continues
AU - Ather, M. Hammad
AU - Abid, Fuad
AU - Akhtar, Sobia
AU - Khawaja, Karim
PY - 2003/1/21
Y1 - 2003/1/21
N2 - Background: To determine factors influencing the clearance of fragments after extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for lower pole calyceal (LPC) stones. Methods: In the period between July 1998 and Oct 2001, 100 patients with isolated lower polar calyceal calculi ≤ 20 mm, in patients aged ≥ 14 years, were included in the study. Intravenous urograms (IVU) were reviewed to define the LPC anatomy (width of the infundibulum and pelvicalyceal angle). Study end points i.e. stone free status; number of shock waves used and number of sessions were correlated with variables like LPC anatomy, body mass index and stone size. Results: At three months follow up the clearance for stone size < 10 mm, 11-15 mm and 16-20 mm were 95, 96 and 90% respectively. Patients with acute LPC (<90°) and obtuse angle (>90°) had stone clearance of 94 and 100% respectively. For the infundibular width of < 4 mm, the stone clearance was 93% were as for > 4 mm, it was 100%. For body mass index (BMI) less than and > 30 kg/m2, the stone clearance was 92 and 95% respectively. Conclusions: There is a trend towards more ESWL sessions and shock wave requirement in patients with acute pelvi-calyceal angle and narrow infundibulum but it is not statistically significant. Size (≤ 20 mm) and BMI has no relation with stone clearance. With modern lithotripter, stones up to 20 mm could primarily be treated by ESWL, irrespective of an un-favorable lower polar calyceal anatomy and body habitus.
AB - Background: To determine factors influencing the clearance of fragments after extra-corporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for lower pole calyceal (LPC) stones. Methods: In the period between July 1998 and Oct 2001, 100 patients with isolated lower polar calyceal calculi ≤ 20 mm, in patients aged ≥ 14 years, were included in the study. Intravenous urograms (IVU) were reviewed to define the LPC anatomy (width of the infundibulum and pelvicalyceal angle). Study end points i.e. stone free status; number of shock waves used and number of sessions were correlated with variables like LPC anatomy, body mass index and stone size. Results: At three months follow up the clearance for stone size < 10 mm, 11-15 mm and 16-20 mm were 95, 96 and 90% respectively. Patients with acute LPC (<90°) and obtuse angle (>90°) had stone clearance of 94 and 100% respectively. For the infundibular width of < 4 mm, the stone clearance was 93% were as for > 4 mm, it was 100%. For body mass index (BMI) less than and > 30 kg/m2, the stone clearance was 92 and 95% respectively. Conclusions: There is a trend towards more ESWL sessions and shock wave requirement in patients with acute pelvi-calyceal angle and narrow infundibulum but it is not statistically significant. Size (≤ 20 mm) and BMI has no relation with stone clearance. With modern lithotripter, stones up to 20 mm could primarily be treated by ESWL, irrespective of an un-favorable lower polar calyceal anatomy and body habitus.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346125569&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1471-2490-3-1
DO - 10.1186/1471-2490-3-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 12546707
AN - SCOPUS:0346125569
SN - 1471-2490
VL - 3
SP - 1
EP - 4
JO - BMC Urology
JF - BMC Urology
M1 - 1
ER -