Abstract
This paper attempts to assess the current status of the various modalities of available treatment for urinary stone disease in the Kerala scenario. A total of 300 patients who attended the stone clinic with urinary stone disease and had stones retrieved by different means were selected for the study. Their clinical symptoms, demographic profile, size, number and position of stones, metabolic profiles, retrieval modalities and end result of treatment in terms of stone clearance were assessed. Instances of failure, incomplete clearance and complication events were noted. Based on the experiences, a flowchart was created for appropriate decision-making in urinary stone management. The modalities of retrieval included nephrectomy, nephrolithotomy, pyelo-nephrolithotomy, extended pyelolithotomy, pyelolithotomy, ureterolithotomy, cystolithotomy, urethrolithotomy, ESWL, PCNL, URS, cystolithotripsy, urethrolithotripsy and spontaneous passage. The clearance rate of stone was maximum in open surgery. The extent of stone clearance by ESWL depended on various factors. PCNL was mostly limited by the difficulties in achieving puncture at the stone site. Availability of a variety of flexible nephroscopes also altered the success rate of the procedure. There were good success rates in pushing stones from the ureter to the pelvis followed by PCNL. In patients who had successful PCNL, postoperative morbidity was significantly reduced in terms of the number of days of hospitalization, time taken for return to work, absence of urinary leak, site infection, urinoma formation and urinary tract infection. URS was performed in many patients and stones retrieved. However, the indication for the procedure remains doubtful as the size of most of the stones thus retrieved was less than 6 mm. These would have passed out spontaneously or with chemotherapeutic support. URS, lithotripsy and basketting were confronted by upward migration of stones to the kidney, requiring further procedures for retrieval. Introduction of double J stents helped in relieving urinary obstruction, particularly in patients presenting with anuria, but retained stents, forgotten stents and failed stone retrieval were common following the procedure. The procedure of URS was simplified by the presence of dilated ureter in spontaneous stone passers or those with distal obstruction and proximal dilatation. It is concluded from the study that open surgery still remains the sheet anchor of treatment of urinary stones in many patients in Kerala. Newer lesser invasive procedures should be ethically selected. Decisions should be patient based, taking into consideration the economic feasibility for the procedure proposed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Blandy JP, Singh M (1976) The case for a more aggressive approach to staghorn calculi. J Urol 115:505–506
Koga S, Arakaki Y, Matsuoka M, Ohyama C (1991) Staghorn calculi. Long-term results of management. Brit J Urol 68:122–124
Gil-Vernet J (1965) New surgical concepts in removing renal calculi. Urol Int 20:255–288
Eisenmenger W (2001) The mechanisms of stone fragmentation in ESWL. Ultrasound Med Biol 27:683
Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL, Gotz T (2001) Minimal invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. Eur Urol 40:619–624
Li X, Zeng GH, Yuan J et al (2004) Treatment of upper urinary calculus with the PCNL technique (experience of 20 years). J Peking Univ Health Sci 36(2):124–126
Dretler SP (2000) Ureteroscopy for proximal ureteral calculi: prevention of stone migration. J Endourol 14:565
Bhatia V, Biyani CS (1992) ESWL for calculus disease in horseshoe kidney: our experiences and current status. Jpn J Endourol ESWL 5:1–10
Kudecic H, Tucak P, Peric N, Prlic D, Zoric I, Galic R (2003) ESWL treatment of urinary stones in children-the overview of 14 years of experience. Coll Antropol 27:71–75
El-Raqih SR, Husain I, Ekman PE, Sharman ND, Charkrabarty A, Talic R (1988) Primary choice of intervention for distal ureteric stone: ureteroscopy or ESWL? Br J Urol 62:13
Un-no T, Nagata M, Takayama T et al (2000) Cystolithotripsy for bladder stones: comparison of holmium: YAG laser with Lithoclast as a lithotripsy device. Hanyokika Kiyo 46:307
Bhatia V, Biyani CS (1994) Vesical lithiasis: open surgery versus cystolithotripsy versus extracorporeal shock-wave therapy. J Urol 151:660
Teichman JMH, Rogenes VJ, McIver BJ et al (1997) Holmium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet laser cystolithotripsy of large bladder calculi. Urology 50:44
Sofer M, Kaver I, Greenstein A (2004) Refinements in treatment of large bladder calculi: simultaneous percutaneous suprapubic and transurethral cystolithotripsy. Urology 64:651–654
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
11th international symposium on urolithiasis, Nice, France, 2–5 September 2008 Urological Research (2008) 36:157–232. doi: 10.1007/s00240-008-0145-5. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x263655772684210/fulltext.pdf.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Marickar, Y.M.F., Nair, N., Varma, G. et al. Retrieval methods for urinary stones. Urol Res 37, 369–376 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0224-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-009-0224-2