Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
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 Journal of Endourolo...arrow_drop_down
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
Journal of Endourology
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
License: Mary Ann Liebert TDM
Data sources: Crossref
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

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Lower Pole Stones: Influence of the Collecting System's Anatomy

Authors: Jessen, Jan Peter; Honeck, Patrick; Knoll, Thomas; Wendt-Nordahl, Gunnar;

Flexible Ureterorenoscopy for Lower Pole Stones: Influence of the Collecting System's Anatomy

Abstract

The impact of renal anatomy on the success rate of flexible ureterorenoscopy (fURS) for lower pole stones is less clear than it is on shock wave lithotripsy, for which it is a recognized influence factor. We analyzed safety and efficiency of fURS using modern endoscopes for lower pole stones dependent on the collecting system's configuration.We retrospectively evaluated a consecutive sample of 111 fURS for lower pole stones at our tertiary care center between January 2010 and September 2012 from our prospectively kept database. All procedures were performed with modern flexible ureterorenoscopes, nitinol baskets, holmium laser lithotripsy, and ureteral access sheaths whenever needed. The infundibular length (IL) and width (IW) and infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) were measured and the data were stratified for stone-free status and complications classified by the Clavien-Dindo scale. Univariate and multifactorial statistical analyses were performed. Correlation of operation time (OR-time) with anatomical parameters was conducted.Ninety-eight (88.3%) of the 111 patients were stone free after a single fURS. On multifactorial analysis, the stone size and IL had significant influence on the stone-free rate (SFR) (p<0.01), whereas IW did not. An acute IPA (<30°) also had significant influence (p=0.01). The incidence of complications and OR-time were not influenced by the pelvicaliceal anatomy.fURS is a safe and efficient treatment option for lower pole kidney stones. A long infundibulum and a very acute IPA (<30°) negatively affect the SFR. However, with second look procedures, a complete stone clearance is achievable even in case of unfavorable anatomic conditions. A narrow infundibulum has no negative effect while using modern endoscopes. The complication rate is not affected by the collecting system's anatomy.

Country
Germany
Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, 610, Lasers, Solid-State, Length of Stay, Middle Aged, Lithotripsy, Laser, Prognosis, Tertiary Care Centers, Kidney Calculi, Ureteroscopy, Humans, Female, Kidney Tubules, Collecting, Aged, Follow-Up Studies, Retrospective Studies

  • 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).
    96
    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.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
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!
96
Top 1%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!