Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Archivio Italiano di...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

High burden stones: the role of SWL.

Authors: G. Zanetti; S. Paparella; M. Ferruti; M. Gelosa; D. Abed El Rahman; F. Rocco;

High burden stones: the role of SWL.

Abstract

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), PCNL and Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL), SWL monotherapy and open surgery are nowadays the potential treatment alternatives for patients with staghorn stones. Several groups have proposed classification schemes to better define staghorn calculi dimensions taking into account size, morphology and composition of the stones. More recently the use of a CT imaging with three-dimensional reconstruction or of a coronal reconstruction of axial CT images was reported to obtain an accurate stone volume calculation. The difficulty in accurately assessing stone burden explains the wide range of reported stone-free rates for SWL monotherapy from 22 to 85%. A recent AUA guideline of the management of staghorn calculi stated that stone free rate is 78% for PCNL and 54% for SWL monotherapy and these values are similar to those reported in Segura guideline but the rate for combination treatment (PNL + SWL) is now lower (66% versus 81%) than in the previous guideline. This reduction is probably due to the fact that in the recent meta-analysis SWL was the last procedure and in the previous generally a sandwich therapy was performed with PCNL followed by a SWL and a secondary PCNL. Improved PCNL techniques with use offlexible nephroscopy and multitract PCNL allow to achieve complete stone clearance by PCNL alone. Complete removal of stone is crucial to eradicate infection and prevent further stone regrowth. Residual fragments may perpetuate postreatment infection and stone regrowth has been reported up to 78% in such patients after SWL monotherapy. In our previous experience (prior to 2000) we observed 45 pts with high burden stones: 31/45 pts (68%) underwent combined therapy PCNL and SWL with a successful rate of 65% (stone free and fragments < 4 mm). In our more recent experience ('03-'08) we treated 34 patients with high burden stones: we performed combined therapy PCNL and SWL in 11 pts (32%) with an overall success rate of 63%. PCNL was undertaken initially with the attempt to remove as much stone as possible with the aid offlexible nephroscopy and SWL was used only for residual stones because the passage, even of fragments < 4 mm, does not always occur in dilated renal cavities. SWL monotherapy should not be used for most patients and may be considered only in patients with small volume staghorn stones with normal collecting system.

Country
Italy
Related Organizations
Keywords

Kidney Calculi, Lithotripsy, Humans

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
gold