Advertisement

World Journal of Urology

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 125–131 | Cite as

Pressure matters: intrarenal pressures during normal and pathological conditions, and impact of increased values to renal physiology

  • Theodoros TokasEmail author
  • Thomas R. W. Herrmann
  • Andreas Skolarikos
  • Udo Nagele
  • Training and Research in Urological Surgery and Technology (T.R.U.S.T.)-Group
Invited Review

Abstract

Purpose

To perform a review on the latest evidence related to normal and pathological intrarenal pressures (IRPs), complications of incremented values, and IRP ranges during endourology.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, restricted to original English-written articles, including animal, artificial model, and human studies. Different keywords were: percutaneous nephrolithotomy, PCNL, ureteroscopy, URS, RIRS, irrigation flow, irrigation pressure, intrarenal pressure, intrapelvic pressure and renal pelvic pressure.

Results

Normal IRPs range from zero to a few cm H2O. Pyelovenous backflow may occur at pressure range of 13.6–27.2 cm H2O. During upper tract endourology, complications such as pyelorenal backflow, sepsis, and renal damage are directly related to increased IRPs. Duration of increased IRPs and concomitant obstruction are independent predictors of complication development.

Conclusions

IRP increase remains a neglected predictor of upper tract endourology complications and its intraoperative monitoring should be taken into consideration. Further research is necessary, to quantify pressures generated during upper tract endourology, and introduce means of controlling them.

Keywords

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy PCNL Ureteroscopy URS RIRS Irrigation flow Irrigation pressure Intrarenal pressure Intrapelvic pressure Renal pelvic pressure 

Notes

Author contributions

TT: Data management, data analysis, manuscript writing. TRW Herrmann: Interpreting data. AS: Interpreting data. UN: Protocol/project development and interpreting data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This review does not involve human participants and/or animals.

References

  1. 1.
    Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22(2):338–342.  https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Struthers NW (1969) The role of manometry in the investigation of pelvi-ureteral function. Br J Urol 41(2):129–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rattner WH, Fink S, Murphy JJ (1957) Pressure studies in the human ureter and renal pelvis. J Urol 78(4):359–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Weaver RG, Yelderman JJ (1967) The positive pressure catheter for measurement of intracavital pressures and pressure patterns. J Urol 98(6):718–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Whitaker RH (1973) Methods of assessing obstruction in dilated ureters. Br J Urol 45(1):15–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Whitaker RH (1979) An evaluation of 170 diagnostic pressure flow studies of the upper urinary tract. J Urol 121(5):602–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Veenboer PW, de Jong TP (2011) Antegrade pressure measurement as a diagnostic tool in modern pediatric urology. World J Urol 29(6):737–741.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0717-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pfitzner J (1976) Poiseuille and his law. Anaesthesia 31(2):273–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bullock KN (1983) The biomechanical principles of upper urinary tract pressure-flow studies. Br J Urol 55(2):136–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kiil F (1953) Pressure recordings in the upper urinary tract. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 5(4):383–384.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00365515309094217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hinman F, Redewill FH (1926) Pyelovenous back flow. J Am Med Assoc 87(16):1287–1293.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1926.02680160035011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Walzak MP Jr, Paquin AJ Jr (1961) Renal pelvic pressure levels in management of nephrostomy. J Urol 85:697–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kinn AC (1981) Pressure flow studies in hydronephrosis. Scand J Urol Nephrol 15(3):249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lupton EW, Holden D, George NJ, Barnard RJ, Rickards D (1985) Pressure changes in the dilated upper urinary tract on perfusion at varying flow rates. Br J Urol 57(6):622–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pfister RC, Newhouse JH, Hendren WH (1982) Percutaneous pyeloureteral urodynamics. Urol Clin North Am 9(1):41–49Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fichtner J, Boineau FG, Lewy JE, Sibley RK, Vari RC, Shortliffe LM (1994) Congenital unilateral hydronephrosis in a rat model: continuous renal pelvic and bladder pressures. J Urol 152(2 Pt 2):652–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kukreja RA, Desai MR, Sabnis RB, Patel SH (2002) Fluid absorption during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: does it matter? J Endourol 16(4):221–224.  https://doi.org/10.1089/089277902753752160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stenberg A, Bohman SO, Morsing P, Muller-Suur C, Olsen L, Persson AE (1988) Back-leak of pelvic urine to the bloodstream. Acta Physiol Scand 134(2):223–234.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1988.tb08483.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boccafoschi C, Lugnani F (1985) Intra-renal reflux. Urol Res 13(5):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jung HU, Frimodt-Moller PC, Osther PJ, Mortensen J (2006) Pharmacological effect on pyeloureteric dynamics with a clinical perspective: a review of the literature. Urol Res 34(6):341–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-006-0069-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomsen HS, Dorph S, Olsen S (1982) Pyelorenal backflow in rabbits following clamping of the renal vein and artery: radiologic and microscopic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn 23(2):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomsen HS, Dorph S, Olsen S (1981) Pyelorenal backflow in normal and ischemic rabbit kidneys. Invest Radiol 16(3):206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomsen HS, Larsen S, Talner LB (1982) Pyelorenal backflow during retrograde pyelography in normal and ischemic porcine kidneys. A radiologic and pathoanatomic study. Eur Urol 8(5):291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hodson CJ (1969) The effects of disturbance of flow on the kidney. J Infect Dis 120(1):54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hahn RG (1991) Monitoring of TURP with ethanol. Lancet (London, England) 338(8782–8783):1602Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz RE, Hanno PM, Wein AJ, Levin RM, Pollack HM, Van Arsdalen KN (1983) Percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy: choice of irrigant. The Journal of urology 130(5):858–860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Malhotra SK, Khaitan A, Goswami AK, Gill KD, Dutta A (2001) Monitoring of irrigation fluid absorption during percutaneous nephrolithotripsy: the use of 1% ethanol as a marker. Anaesthesia 56(11):1103–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Xu S, Shi H, Zhu J, Wang Y, Cao Y, Li K, Wang Y, Sun Z, Xia S (2014) A prospective comparative study of hemodynamic, electrolyte, and metabolic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy and minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 32(5):1275–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-013-1204-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carson CC, Nesbitt JA (1985) Peritoneal extravasation during percutaneous lithotripsy. J Urol 134(4):725–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sinclair JF, Hutchison A, Baraza R, Telfer AB (1985) Absorption of 1.5% glycine after percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy for renal stone disease. Br Med J (Clinical research ed) 291(6497):691–692Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Dimberg M, Norlen H, Hoglund N, Allgen LG (1993) Absorption of irrigating fluid during percutaneous transrenal lithotripsy. Scand J Urol Nephrol 27(4):463–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rao PN (1987) Fluid absorption during urological endoscopy. Br J Urol 60(2):93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cybulski P, Honey RJ, Pace K (2004) Fluid absorption during ureterorenoscopy. J Endourol 18(8):739–742.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2004.18.739 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhong W, Leto G, Wang L, Zeng G (2015) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a study of risk factors. J Endourol 29(1):25–28.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0409 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seitz C, Desai M, Hacker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.09.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Michel MS, Trojan L, Rassweiler JJ (2007) Complications in percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 51(4):899–906.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.020 (discussion 906) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kreydin EI, Eisner BH (2013) Risk factors for sepsis after percutaneous renal stone surgery. Nat Rev Urol 10(10):598–605.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2013.183 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Omar M, Noble M, Sivalingam S, El Mahdy A, Gamal A, Farag M, Monga M (2016) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a randomized single-blind clinical trial evaluating the impact of irrigation pressure. J Urol 196(1):109–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schwalb DM, Eshghi M, Davidian M, Franco I (1993) Morphological and physiological changes in the urinary tract associated with ureteral dilation and ureteropyeloscopy: an experimental study. J Urol 149(6):1576–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Thomsen HS, Dorph S, Larsen S, Talner LB (1983) Intrarenal backflow and renal perfusion during increased intrapelvic pressure in excised porcine kidneys. Acta Radiol Diagn 24(4):327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fung LC, Atala A (1998) Constant elevation in renal pelvic pressure induces an increase in urinary N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase in a nonobstructive porcine model. J Urol 159(1):212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Li X, Liu M, Bedja D, Thoburn C, Gabrielson K, Racusen L, Rabb H (2012) Acute renal venous obstruction is more detrimental to the kidney than arterial occlusion: implication for murine models of acute kidney injury. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 302(5):F519–F525.  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00011.2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Park Y, Hirose R, Dang K, Xu F, Behrends M, Tan V, Roberts JP, Niemann CU (2008) Increased severity of renal ischemia-reperfusion injury with venous clamping compared to arterial clamping in a rat model. Surgery 143(2):243–251.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2007.07.041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cao Z, Yu W, Li W, Cheng F, Rao T, Yao X, Zhang X, Larre S (2015) Oxidative damage and mitochondrial injuries are induced by various irrigation pressures in rabbit models of mild and severe hydronephrosis. PLoS One 10(6):e0127143.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Boddy SA, Nimmon CC, Jones S, Ramsay JW, Britton KE, Levison DA, Whitfield HN (1989) Irrigation and acute ureteric dilatation—as for ureteroscopy. Br J Urol 63(1):11–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shafik A (1998) Response of the renal pelvis and ureter to distension of the contralateral renal pelvis and ureter: identification of the reno-renal pelvic reflex. World J Urol 16(5):359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Atici S, Zeren S, Aribogan A (2001) Hormonal and hemodynamic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 32(3):311–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mohta M, Bhagchandani T, Tyagi A, Pendse M, Sethi AK (2008) Haemodynamic, electrolyte and metabolic changes during percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Int Urol Nephrol 40(2):477–482.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-006-9093-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hodson CJ (1981) Neuhauser lecture. Reflux nephropathy: a personal historical review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 137(3):451–462.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.137.3.451 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thomsen HS (1984) Pyelorenal backflow. Clinical and experimental investigations. Radiologic, nuclear, medical and pathoanatomic studies. Dan Med Bull 31(6):438–457Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Meng H, Chen S, Chen G, Tan F, Wang C, Shen B (2013) Renal subcapsular hemorrhage complicating ureterolithotripsy: an unknown complication of a known day-to-day procedure. Urol Int 91(3):335–339.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000350891 Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Xu L, Li G (2013) Life-threatening subcapsular renal hematoma after flexible ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy: treatment with superselective renal arterial embolization. Urolithiasis 41(5):449–451.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0585-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cutress ML, Stewart GD, Wells-Cole S, Phipps S, Thomas BG, Tolley DA (2012) Long-term endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma: 20-year single-centre experience. BJU Int 110(11):1608–1617.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11169.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Grasso M, Fishman AI, Cohen J, Alexander B (2012) Ureteroscopic and extirpative treatment of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinoma: a 15-year comprehensive review of 160 consecutive patients. BJU Int 110(11):1618–1626.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11066.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhong W, Zeng G, Wu K, Li X, Chen W, Yang H (2008) Does a smaller tract in percutaneous nephrolithotomy CONTRibute to high renal pelvic pressure and postoperative fever? J Endourol 22(9):2147–2151.  https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2008.0001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dogan HS, Sahin A, Cetinkaya Y, Akdogan B, Ozden E, Kendi S (2002) Antibiotic prophylaxis in percutaneous nephrolithotomy: prospective study in 81 patients. J Endourol 16(9):649–653.  https://doi.org/10.1089/089277902761402989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cao Z, Yu W, Li W, Cheng F, Xia Y, Rao T, Yao X, Zhang X, Larre S (2013) Acute kidney injuries induced by various irrigation pressures in rat models of mild and severe hydronephrosis. Urology 82 (6):1453.e1459–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2013.08.024
  58. 58.
    Landman J, Venkatesh R, Ragab M, Rehman J, Lee DI, Morrissey KG, Monga M, Sundaram CP (2002) Comparison of intrarenal pressure and irrigant flow during percutaneous nephroscopy with an indwelling ureteral catheter, ureteral occlusion balloon, and ureteral access sheath. Urology 60(4):584–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Shao Y, Shen ZJ, Zhu YY, Sun XW, Lu J, Xia SJ (2012) Fluid-electrolyte and renal pelvic pressure changes during ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Min Invas Ther Allied Technol MITAT 21(4):302–306.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13645706.2011.595419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology and AndrologyGeneral Hospital Hall in TirolHall in TirolAustria
  2. 2.Department of UrologyKantonspital Frauenfeld, Spital Thurgau AGFrauenfeldSwitzerland
  3. 3.Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio HospitalAthens Medical SchoolAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations