Cargando…

Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature

Controversies exist on the influence of lower pole anatomy (infundibular pelvic angle, IPA; infundibular length, IL; and infundibular width, IW) for success and outcomes related to the treatment of stones in the lower pole. We wanted to look at the role of lower pole anatomy to study clinical outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf, Hanna, Luke, Geraghty, Robert, Somani, Bhaskar K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7220875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31372691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0
_version_ 1783533252302077952
author Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf
Hanna, Luke
Geraghty, Robert
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_facet Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf
Hanna, Luke
Geraghty, Robert
Somani, Bhaskar K.
author_sort Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf
collection PubMed
description Controversies exist on the influence of lower pole anatomy (infundibular pelvic angle, IPA; infundibular length, IL; and infundibular width, IW) for success and outcomes related to the treatment of stones in the lower pole. We wanted to look at the role of lower pole anatomy to study clinical outcomes in patients treated for isolated lower pole stones (LPS) using retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS), and also perform a review to look at the published literature on the influence of pelvicalyceal anatomy on success with RIRS. Data were prospectively collected (June 2013–June 2016) for all patients who underwent RIRS for LPS, and the imaging was then retrospectively reviewed to calculate the IPA, IL and IW using the Elbahnasy method. A systematic review was also conducted for all English language articles between January 2000 and April 2018, reporting on the impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on RIRS. A total of 108 patients with LPS were included with a male to female ratio of 2:3 and a mean age of 54.7 years. The mean lower pole stone size was 9.3 mm (range 3–29 mm) and 102/108 (94.4%) patients were stone free (SF) at the end of their procedure. While steep IPA (< 30°), operative time duration and larger stone size were significant predictors of failure, the placement of ureteric access sheath, IW and IL did not influence treatment outcomes. Six studies (460 patients) met the inclusion criteria for our review. The IPA, IW, IL for failure ranged from 26° to 38°, 5.5–7 mm and 24–34 mm, respectively. The SFR ranged from 78 to 88% with a metaanalysis showing IPA as the most important predictor of treatment outcomes for LPS. Infundibular pelvic angle seems to be the most important predictor for the treatment of LPS using RIRS. Pelvicalyceal anatomy in conjunction with stone size and hardness seem to dictate the success, and decisions on the type of surgical interventions should reflect this.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7220875
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72208752020-05-14 Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf Hanna, Luke Geraghty, Robert Somani, Bhaskar K. Urolithiasis Original Paper Controversies exist on the influence of lower pole anatomy (infundibular pelvic angle, IPA; infundibular length, IL; and infundibular width, IW) for success and outcomes related to the treatment of stones in the lower pole. We wanted to look at the role of lower pole anatomy to study clinical outcomes in patients treated for isolated lower pole stones (LPS) using retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS), and also perform a review to look at the published literature on the influence of pelvicalyceal anatomy on success with RIRS. Data were prospectively collected (June 2013–June 2016) for all patients who underwent RIRS for LPS, and the imaging was then retrospectively reviewed to calculate the IPA, IL and IW using the Elbahnasy method. A systematic review was also conducted for all English language articles between January 2000 and April 2018, reporting on the impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on RIRS. A total of 108 patients with LPS were included with a male to female ratio of 2:3 and a mean age of 54.7 years. The mean lower pole stone size was 9.3 mm (range 3–29 mm) and 102/108 (94.4%) patients were stone free (SF) at the end of their procedure. While steep IPA (< 30°), operative time duration and larger stone size were significant predictors of failure, the placement of ureteric access sheath, IW and IL did not influence treatment outcomes. Six studies (460 patients) met the inclusion criteria for our review. The IPA, IW, IL for failure ranged from 26° to 38°, 5.5–7 mm and 24–34 mm, respectively. The SFR ranged from 78 to 88% with a metaanalysis showing IPA as the most important predictor of treatment outcomes for LPS. Infundibular pelvic angle seems to be the most important predictor for the treatment of LPS using RIRS. Pelvicalyceal anatomy in conjunction with stone size and hardness seem to dictate the success, and decisions on the type of surgical interventions should reflect this. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-08-01 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7220875/ /pubmed/31372691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Karim, Sulaiman Sadaf
Hanna, Luke
Geraghty, Robert
Somani, Bhaskar K.
Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title_full Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title_fullStr Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title_full_unstemmed Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title_short Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
title_sort role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (rirs) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7220875/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31372691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0
work_keys_str_mv AT karimsulaimansadaf roleofpelvicalycealanatomyintheoutcomesofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryrirsforlowerpolestonesoutcomeswithasystematicreviewofliterature
AT hannaluke roleofpelvicalycealanatomyintheoutcomesofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryrirsforlowerpolestonesoutcomeswithasystematicreviewofliterature
AT geraghtyrobert roleofpelvicalycealanatomyintheoutcomesofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryrirsforlowerpolestonesoutcomeswithasystematicreviewofliterature
AT somanibhaskark roleofpelvicalycealanatomyintheoutcomesofretrogradeintrarenalsurgeryrirsforlowerpolestonesoutcomeswithasystematicreviewofliterature