The efficacy of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) as a primary therapy for the treatment of lower pole caliceal lithiasis was determined.
Materials and Methods:
We reviewed 144 consecutive files of patients, over a period of 10 years, with noncomplicated lower pole calculi, who underwent PCNL after a single unsuccessful session of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL).
Results:
The stone-free rate for stones less than 10 mm was 95%. A 97% rate was accomplished for stones between 11 and 20 mm and a 98% rate for stones larger than 20 mm. PCNL achieved a mean overall stone-free rate of 96.7% after a 3-month follow-up, regardless of stone size. PCNL outclasses SWL, when stratified by stone burden and lower pole location. No significant postoperative complications were encountered.
Conclusion:
PCNL is a safe and effective procedure for the management of lower pole caliceal calculi after a single unsuccessful SWL session. This procedure should be considered the primary method for the treatment of lower pole stones.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LingemanJE, SiegelYI, SteeleB, NyhuisAW, WoodsJR. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: A critical analysis. J Urol, 1994; 151:663–667.
2.
ConortP, DoreB, SausineC. Comite Lithiase de l’ Association Francaise d'Urologie: Guidelines for the urological management of renal and ureteric stones in adults. Prog Urol, 2004; 14:1095–1102.
3.
SuminoY, MimataH, TasakiY, OhnoH, HoshinoT. Predictors of lower pole renal stone clearance after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol, 2002; 168:1344–1347.
4.
NettoNRJr., ClaroJF, LemosGC, CortadoPL. Renal calculi in lower pole calices: What is the best method of treatment?J Urol, 1991; 146:721–723.
5.
CassAS. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for lower pole lithiasis?J Endourol, 1996; 10:17–20.
6.
DoreB, ConortP, IraniJet al.Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy in subjects over the age of 70: A multicenter retrospective study of 210 cases. Prog Urol, 2004; 14,c:1140–1145.
7.
AlbalaD, AssimosDG, ClaymanRVet al.Lower pole. I. A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for lower pole nephrolithiasis—Initial results. J Urol, 2001; 166:2072–2080.
8.
HavelD, SaussineC, FathC, LangH, FaureF, JacqminD. Single stones of the lower pole of the kidney: Comparative results of ESWL and PCNL. Eur Urol, 1998; 33:396–400.
9.
CeliaA, MicalisS, SighinolfiMCet al.May Phyllanthus niruri (Uriston®) affect the efficacy of ESWL on renal stones? A prospective, randomized short term study. Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: San Antonio, TexasMay 21–262005.
10.
GerberR, StuderUE, DanuserH. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. J Urol, 2005; 173:2013–2016.
11.
GraderSF, DanuserH, HochreiterWW, StuderUE. A prospective randomized trial comparing 2 lithotriptors for stone disintegration and induced renal trauma. J Urol, 2003; 169:54–57.
12.
CassAS. Comparison of first generation (Dornier HM3) and second generation (Medstone STS) lithotriptors: Treatment results with 13,864 renal and ureteral calculi. J Urol, 1995; 153:588–592.
13.
LiCC, FinleyDS, UribeCet al.Effect of urine specific gravity on effectiveness if shockwave lithotripsy. J Endourol, 2005; 19:167–169.
14.
SampaioFJ, AragaoA. Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: Its probable role in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. J Urol, 1992; 147:322–324.
15.
Elbahnasy, ClaymanRV, ShalhavALet al.Lower caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: The impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol, 1998; 159:676–682.
16.
ElbahnasyAM, ClaymanRV, ShalhavALet al.Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: Impact of spatial anatomy. J Endourol, 1998; 12:113–119.
17.
PardalidisP, SmithA. Complications of percutaneous renal procedures. SmithAD. Controversies in Endourology. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1995Chapter 1179–185.
18.
KessarisDN, BellmanGC, PardalidisNP, SmithAG. Management of haemorrhage after percutaneous renal surgery. J Urol, 1995; 153:604–608.
19.
McDougallE, LiatsikosE, DinleckC, SmithA. Percutaneous approaches to the upper urinary tract. Cambell's Urology, 8th4. Campell-Walls: Saunders, 2002Chapter 983320–3360.
20.
NgJ, KimS, LifshitzD, TikvaP, LingemanJE. Tubeless upper pole access for percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Presented at the American Urological Association Annual Meeting: San Antonio, TexasMay 21–262005.
PremingerGM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: Shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res, 2006; 34:108–111.
26.
PearleMS, LingemanJE, LeveilleeRet 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:69–73.
27.
LahmeS, BichlerKH, StrohmaierWL, GotzT. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and caliceal stones. Eur Urol, 2001; 40:619–624.
