Advertisement

The influence of pelvicalyceal system anatomy on minimally invasive treatments of patients with renal calculi

  • Paul van ZantenEmail author
  • Saskia Weltings
  • Hossain Roshani
Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

Nephrolithiasis has a multifactorial etiology, wherein, besides metabolic factors, the anatomy of the pelvicalyceal system might play a role. Using 3D-reconstructions of CT-urography (CT-U), we studied the morphometric properties of pelvicalyceal anatomy affecting kidney stone formation and compared those with existing literature on their effect on minimally invasive treatment techniques for renal calculi.

Methods

CT-U’s were made between 01-01-2017 and 30-09-2018. Patients were chronologically included in two groups: a nephrolithiasis group when ≥ 1 calculus was present on the CT-U and a control group of patients with both the absence of calculi on the CT-U and no medical history of urolithiasis. Patients with a medical history of diseases leading to higher risks on urolithiasis were excluded. In the nephrolithiasis group affected kidneys were measured. In the control group, left and right kidneys were alternately measured.

Results

Twenty kidneys were measured in both groups. Mean calyceopelvic tract width was significantly larger in the lower segments of affected kidneys (3.9 vs. 2.7 mm). No significant differences between the groups were found in number of calyces, infundibular length, infundibular width, calyceopelvic angle, upper–lower angle and diameters of the pelvis. Transversal calyceal orientation in hours was significantly smaller in the upper and lower segments of the nephrolithiasis group (7.69 vs. 8.52 and 8.08 vs. 9.09 h), corresponding with more dorsally located calyces in stone-forming kidneys.

Conclusion

Pelvicalyceal anatomy differs between stone-forming and non-stone-forming kidneys. Understanding the pelvicalyceal system and etiology of stone formation can improve development of endourological techniques.

Keywords

Nephrolithiasis Anatomy Pelvicalyceal system Endourological treatment Three-dimensional imaging 

Notes

Funding

None

References

  1. 1.
    Boevé ER ZJ (2008) Pijn in de buik. In: Bangma C (ed) Urologie. Bohn Stafleu van LoghumGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bihl G, Meyers A (2001) Recurrent renal stone disease-advances in pathogenesis and clinical management. Lancet 358 (9282):651-656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05782-8
  3. 3.
    Curhan GC, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ (1993) A prospective study of dietary calcium and other nutrients and the risk of symptomatic kidney stones. N Engl J Med 328 (12):833-838.  https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199303253281203
  4. 4.
    Geraghty RM, Proietti S, Traxer O, Archer M, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide Impact of Warmer Seasons on the Incidence of Renal Colic and Kidney Stone Disease: Evidence from a Systematic Review of Literature. J Endourol 31 (8):729-735.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2017.0123
  5. 5.
    Pawar AS, Thongprayoon C, Cheungpasitporn W, Sakhuja A, Mao MA, Erickson SB (2018) Incidence and characteristics of kidney stones in patients with horseshoe kidney: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Ann 10 (1):87–93.  https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_76_17
  6. 6.
    Gokalp A, Tahmaz L, Peskircioglu L, Ozgok Y, Saglam M, Kibar Y, Harmankaya AC (1999) Effect of lower infundibulopelvic angle, lower infundibulum diameter and inferior calyceal length on stone formation. Urol Int 63 (2):107-109.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000030427
  7. 7.
    Kupeli B, Tunc L, Acar C, Gurocak S, Alkibay T, Guneri C, Bozkirli I (2006) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomical variation between the stone-bearing and normal contralateral kidney on stone formation in adult patients with lower caliceal stones. Int Braz J Urol 32 (3):287-292; discussion 292-284.  https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-55382006000300005
  8. 8.
    Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147 (2):322-324Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elbahnasy AM, Shalhav AL, Hoenig DM, Elashry OM, Smith DS, McDougall EM, Clayman RV (1998) Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Urol 159 (3):676-682Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Triepels CPR, Smeets CFA, Notten KJB, Kruitwagen R, Futterer JJ, Vergeldt TFM, Van Kuijk SMJ (2019) Does three-dimensional anatomy improve student understanding? Clin Anat.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.23405
  11. 11.
    Xu Y, Lyu JL (2016) The value of three-dimensional helical computed tomography for the retrograde flexible ureteronephroscopy in the treatment of lower pole calyx stones. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2 (1):42-47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdtm.2016.02.001
  12. 12.
    Weltings S, Hulsbos S, Kieft GJ, Pelger RCM, Roshani H (2019) The anatomy of the renal pyelocaliceal system studied by CTU. Abdom Radiol (NY) 44 (2):612-618.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1767-x
  13. 13.
    Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB, Oztuna D, Unsal A (2012) The impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stones. Urology 79 (1):61-66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.031
  14. 14.
    Geavlete P, Multescu R, Geavlete B (2008) Influence of pyelocaliceal anatomy on the success of flexible ureteroscopic approach. J Endourol 22 (10):2235-2239.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.9719
  15. 15.
    Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T, Ozgor F, Seyrek M, Ozkuvanci U, Berberoglu Y, Muslumanoglu AY (2010) Is there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures? J Endourol 24 (12):1929-1934.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0211
  16. 16.
    Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urological Research 39 (3):185-188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0
  17. 17.
    C. Türk AS, A. Neisius, A. Petřík, C. Seitz, K. Thomas, J.F. Donaldson, T. Drake, N. Grivas, Y. Ruhayel (2018) EAU Guidelines on UrolithiasisGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jung H, Pless MS, Osther PJS (2018) Anatomic variations and stone formation. Curr Opin Urol 28 (5):420-427.  https://doi.org/10.1097/mou.0000000000000519
  19. 19.
    Sanal B, Korkmaz M, Can F, Aras B, Buyukkaya A (2015) Do the variations in renal pelvic angles play a role in the formation of renal stone? A computed tomography study. Ren Fail 37 (9):1448-1451.  https://doi.org/10.3109/0886022x.2015.1074491
  20. 20.
    Karim SS, Hanna L, Geraghty R, Somani BK (2019) Role of pelvicalyceal anatomy in the outcomes of retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for lower pole stones: outcomes with a systematic review of literature. Urolithiasis.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-019-01150-0

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul van Zanten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Saskia Weltings
    • 1
  • Hossain Roshani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of UrologyHaga Teaching HospitalThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations