Advertisement

Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy

, Volume 37, Issue 10, pp 1243–1249 | Cite as

Lower pole anatomy and mid-renal-zone classification applied to flexible ureteroscopy: experimental study using human three-dimensional endocasts

  • Bruno Marroig
  • Luciano Alves FavoritoEmail author
  • Marco A. Fortes
  • Francisco J. B. Sampaio
Original Article

Abstract

Purpuse

The aim of this study was to analyze the anatomy of the inferior pole collecting system and the mid-renal-zone classification in human endocasts applied to flexible ureteroscopy.

Methods

170 three-dimensional polyester resin endocasts of the kidney collecting system were obtained from 85 adult cadavers. We divided the endocasts into four groups: A1—kidney midzone (KM), drained by minor calices (mc) that are dependent on the superior or the inferior caliceal groups; A2—KM drained by crossed calices; B1—KM drained by a major caliceal group independent of both the superior and inferior groups; and B2—KM drained by mc entering directly into the renal pelvis. We studied the number of calices, the angle between the lower infundibulum and renal pelvis and the angle between the lower infundibulum and the inferior mc (LIICA). Means were statistically compared using ANOVA and the unpaired T test (p < 0.05).

Results

We found 57 (33.53 %) endocasts of group A1; 23 (13.53 %) of group A2; 59 (34.71 %) of group B1; and 31 (18.23 %) of group B2. The inferior pole was drained by four or more calices in 84 cases (49.41 %), distributed into groups as follows: A1 = 35 cases (41.67 %); A2 = 18 (21.43 %); B1 = 22 (26.19 %); and B2 = 9 (10.71 %). Perpendicular mc were observed in 15 cases (8.82 %). We did not observe statistical differences between the LIICA in the groups studied.

Conclusions

Collector systems with kidney midzone drained by minor calices that are dependent on the superior or on the inferior caliceal groups presented at least two restrictive anatomical features. The mid-renal-zone classification was predictive of anatomical risk factors for lower pole ureteroscopy difficulties.

Keywords

Flexible ureteroscopy Kidney anatomy Lower pole anatomy Endocasts 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq—Brazil) and the Rio de Janeiro State Research Foundation (FAPERJ).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest as statement in the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV et al (2001) Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotrispsy and percutaneous nephrostolithothomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 166:2072–2080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cohen J, Cohen S, Grasso M (2013) Ureteropyeloscopic treatment of large, complex intrarenal and proximal ureteral calculi. BJU Int 111:127–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11352.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Assmy A, Abo-Elghar ME, El-Nahas AR, Youssef RF, El-Diasty T, Sheir KZ (2008) Anatomic predictors of formation of lower caliceal calculi: is it the time for three-dimensional computed tomography urography? J Endourol 22:2175–2179. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.0148 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elbahnasy AM, Clayman RV, Shalhav AL et al (1998) Lower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy: the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomy. J Endourol 159:676–682Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    El Nahas AR, Ibrahim HM, Youssef RF, Sheir KZ (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole stones of 10–20 mm. BJU Int 110:898–902. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10961.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Filho DR, Favorito LA, Costa WS, Sampaio FJ (2009) Kidney lower pole pelvicaliceal anatomy: comparative analysis between intravenous urogram and three-dimensional helical computed tomography. J Endourol 12:2035–2040. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.04.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Geavlete P, Multescu R, Geaviete B (2008) Influence of pyelocaliceal anatomy on the sucess of flexible ureteroscopic approach. J Endourol 22:2235–2239. doi: 10.1089/end.2008.9719 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghani KR, Bultitude M, Hegarty N, Thomas K, Glass J (2012) Flexible ureterorenoscopy (URS) for lower pole calculi. BJU Int 110:294–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10616.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta NP, Singh DV, Hemal AK, Suhnasis M (2000) Infundibulopelvic anatomy and clearance of inferior caliceal calculi with shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 163:24–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hussain M, Acher P, Penev B, Cynk M (2011) Redefining the limits of flexible ureteroscopy. J Endourol 25:45–49. doi: 10.1089/end.2010.0236 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H, Ogawa T, Yao M, Kubota Y, Matsuzaki J (2013) Evaluation of preoperative measurement of stone surface area as a predictor of stone-free status after combined ureteroscopy with holmium lases lithotripsy: a single center experience. J Endourol 27:715–721. doi: 10.1089/end.2012.0548 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T, wendt-Nordahl G (2014) Flexible ureteroreoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy. J Endourol 28:146–151. doi: 10.1089/end.2013.0401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones JK, Krow A, Hariharan S, Weeks L (2008) Measuring angles on digitalized radiographic images using Microsoft PowerPoint. West Indian Med J 57:14–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knoll T, Jessen JP, Honeck P, Wendt-Nordahi G (2011) Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30mm size. World J Urol 29:755–759. doi: 10.1007/s00345-011-0784-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Knoll T, Musial A, Trojan L, Ptahnyk T, Michel MS, Alken P, Kohrmann KU (2003) Measurement of renal anatomy for prediction of lower-pole caliceal stone clearance: reproducibility of different parameters. J Endourol 7:447–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar PVS, Joshi HB, Keeley FX, Timoney AG (2000) An acute infundibulopelvic angle predicts failure of flexible ureteroscopy for lower calyceal stones. J Urol 163:339AGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller J, Durack JC, Sorensen MD, Wang JH, Stoller ML (2013) Renal calyceal anatomy characterization with 3-dimensional in vivo computerized tomography imaging. J Urol 189:562–567. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.040 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Preminger GM (2006) Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithothripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscpy. Urol Res 34:108–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 79:61–66. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.06.031 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sampaio FJB (2000) Renal anatomy: endourologic considerations. Urol Clin North Am 27:585–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sampaio FJ, Aragao AH (1992) Inferior pole collecting system anatomy: its probable role in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 147:322–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sampaio FJB, D’Anunciação AL, Silva EC (1997) Comparative follow-up of patients with acute and obtuse infundibulum-pelvic angle submitted to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower caliceal stones: preliminary report and proposed study design. J Endourol 11:157–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sampaio FJ, Mandarim de Lacerda CA (1988) Anatomic classification of the kidney collecting system for endourologic procedures. J Endourol 2:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno Marroig
    • 1
  • Luciano Alves Favorito
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Marco A. Fortes
    • 1
  • Francisco J. B. Sampaio
    • 1
  1. 1.Urogenital Research UnitState University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Rio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations