Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Renal Calculi in Lower Pole Calices: What is the Best Method of Treatment?
1991; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 146; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37905-3
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresNelson Rodrígues Netto, Joaquim F.A. Claro, Gustavo Caserta Lemos, Pedro Luis Cortado,
Tópico(s)Dermatological and Skeletal Disorders
ResumoNo AccessJournal of Urology1 Sep 1991Renal Calculi in Lower Pole Calices: What is the Best Method of Treatment? Nelson Rodrigues Netto, Joaquim F.A. Claro, Gustavo C. Lemos, and Pedro L. Cortado Nelson Rodrigues NettoNelson Rodrigues Netto , Joaquim F.A. ClaroJoaquim F.A. Claro , Gustavo C. LemosGustavo C. Lemos , and Pedro L. CortadoPedro L. Cortado View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37905-3AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Percutaneous nephrolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL*) can be used in the treatment of lower pole caliceal calculi. In a retrospective analysis these 2 therapies were compared for treatment of solitary lower pole caliceal calculi to evaluate morbidity. During a 2-year period 23 patients treated with percutaneous nephrolithotomy and 24 who underwent ESWL with the Siemens Lithostar were analyzed in regard to the success rate, effectiveness quotient, complication rate, length of hospitalization and disability period. Followup consisted of ultrasound and/or a plain film of the kidneys, ureters and bladder 1 day and 1 to 3 months postoperatively. A nephrotomogram was included in the ESWL group. Complete removal of all stone fragments was achieved in 93.6% of the patients treated percutaneously without retreatment. In the ESWL group the success rate was 79.2% with a 41.6% retreatment rate. On the other hand, the ESWL group had a shorter hospitalization and an earlier return to normal physical activities. Among the patients who underwent a percutaneous operation 13% had complications compared to 4.1% in the ESWL group. The recurrence rate was higher in the former group (13% within a median of 18 months, compared to 8.3% within a median of 11 months in the ESWL group). The mean stone diameter was 1.42cm. in the percutaneous group and 1.22cm. in the ESWL group. Stone composition was similar in both groups. Since ESWL is an effective noninvasive procedure without the need for routine anesthesia and hospitalization, and with prompt return of the patient to a normal life it must be considered the method of choice for lower caliceal stones less than 2cm. in diameter. However, percutaneous nephrolithotomy will continue to have a primary role in the management of larger stones. © 1991 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMicali S, Sighinolfi M, Celia A, De Stefani S, Grande M, Cicero A and Bianchi G (2018) Can Phyllanthus niruri Affect the Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones? A Randomized, Prospective, Long-Term StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 176, NO. 3, (1020-1022), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2006.ÖNAL B, DEMIRKESEN O, TANSU N, KALKAN M, ALTINTAŞ R and YALÇIN V (2018) THE IMPACT OF CALICEAL PELVIC ANATOMY ON STONE CLEARANCE AFTER SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR PEDIATRIC LOWER POLE STONESJournal of Urology, VOL. 172, NO. 3, (1082-1086), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2004.PACE K, TARIQ N, DYER S, WEIR M and D'A. HONEY R (2018) MECHANICAL PERCUSSION, INVERSION AND DIURESIS FOR RESIDUAL LOWER POLE FRAGMENTS AFTER SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY: A PROSPECTIVE, SINGLE BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 6, (2065-2071), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001.ALBALA D, ASSIMOS D, CLAYMAN R, DENSTEDT J, GRASSO M, GUTIERREZ-ACEVES J, KAHN R, LEVEILLEE R, LINGEMAN J, MACALUSO J, MUNCH L, NAKADA S, NEWMAN R, PEARLE M, PREMINGER G, TEICHMAN J and WOODS J (2018) LOWER POLE I: A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY AND PERCUTANEOUS NEPHROSTOLITHOTOMY FOR LOWER POLE NEPHROLITHIASIS—INITIAL RESULTSJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 6, (2072-2080), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001.ÖBEK C, ÖNAL B, KANTAY K, KALKAN M, YALÇIN V, ÖNER A, SOLOK V and TANSU N (2018) THE EFFICACY OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR ISOLATED LOWER POLE CALCULI COMPARED WITH ISOLATED MIDDLE AND UPPER CALICEAL CALCULIJournal of Urology, VOL. 166, NO. 6, (2081-2085), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2001.GUPTA N, SINGH D, HEMAL A and MANDAL S (2018) INFUNDIBULOPELVIC ANATOMY AND CLEARANCE OF INFERIOR CALICEAL CALCULI WITH SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSYJournal of Urology, VOL. 163, NO. 1, (24-27), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2000.May D and Chandhoke P (2018) EFFICACY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVE LITHOTRIPSY FOR SOLITARY LOWER POLE RENAL CALCULIJournal of Urology, VOL. 159, NO. 1, (24-27), Online publication date: 1-Jan-1998.Chen R and Streem S (2018) Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Lower Pole Calculi: Long-term Radiographic and Clinical OutcomeJournal of Urology, VOL. 156, NO. 5, (1572-1575), Online publication date: 1-Nov-1996.Lingeman J, Siegel Y, Steele B, Nyhuis A and Woods J (2018) Management of Lower Pole Nephrolithiasis: A Critical AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 151, NO. 3, (663-667), Online publication date: 1-Mar-1994.Vandeursen H and Baert L (2018) Electromagnetic Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Calculi in Horseshoe KidneysJournal of Urology, VOL. 148, NO. 3 Part 2, (1120-1122), Online publication date: 1-Sep-1992. Volume 146Issue 3September 1991Page: 721-723 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 1991 by The American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Keywordskidney pelvislithotripsykidney calculiextracorporeal shockwave lithotripsyMetricsAuthor Information Nelson Rodrigues Netto More articles by this author Joaquim F.A. Claro More articles by this author Gustavo C. Lemos More articles by this author Pedro L. Cortado More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)