Article

Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi

Comprehensive Kidney Stone Center, Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA
Urology (Impact Factor: 2.42). 01/2001; DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00821-9

ABSTRACT Objectives. Current ureteroscopic intracorporeal lithotripsy devices and stone retrieval technology allow for the treatment of calculi located throughout the intrarenal collecting system. Difficulty accessing lower pole calculi, especially when the holmium laser fiber is used, is often encountered. We retrospectively reviewed our experience with cases in which lower pole renal calculi were ureteroscopically managed by holmium laser fragmentation, either in situ or by first displacing the stone into a less dependent position with the aid of a nitinol stone retrieval device.Methods. Thirty-four patients (36 renal units) underwent ureteroscopic treatment of lower pole renal calculi between April 1998 and November 1999. Lower pole stones less than 20 mm were primarily treated by ureteroscopic means in patients who were obese, in patients who had a bleeding diathesis, in patients with stones resistant to shock wave lithotripsy, and in patients with complicated intrarenal anatomy, or as a salvage procedure after failed shock wave lithotripsy. Lower pole calculi were fragmented with a 200-μm holmium laser fiber by way of a 7.5F flexible ureteroscope. For those patients in whom the laser fiber reduced the ureteroscopic deflection, precluding re-entry into the lower pole calix, a 3.2F nitinol basket or a 2.6F nitinol grasper was used to displace the lower pole calculus into a more favorable position, allowing easier fragmentation.Results. In 26 renal units, routine in situ holmium laser fragmentation was successfully performed. In the remaining 10 renal units, a nitinol device was passed into the lower pole, through the ureteroscope, for stone displacement. Only a minimal loss of deflection was seen. Irrigation was significantly reduced by the 3.2F nitinol basket, but improved with the use of the 2.6F nitinol grasper. This factor did not impede stone retrieval in any of the patients. At 3 months, 85% of patients were stone free by intravenous urography or computed tomography.Conclusions. Ureteroscopic management of lower pole calculi is a reasonable alternative to shock wave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in patients with low-volume stone disease. If the stone cannot be fragmented in situ, nitinol basket or grasper retrieval, through a fully deflected ureteroscope, allows one to reposition the stone into a less dependent position, thus facilitating stone fragmentation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
73 Views
  • BJU International 07/2012; 110(2):294-8. · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many years, the treatment options of lower pole stones have been discussed controversially: Watchful waiting, shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous litholapaxy. Small lower pole stones <1 cm can be monitored actively. Shock waves can disintegrate the stones and are recommended for stones <1 cm. However, the stone-free rate is limited because of the particular anatomy of the lower pole. Modern flexible ureterorenoscopes can nowadays reach even anatomically unfavourable lower calyxes. For stones <1 cm good stone-free results can be achieved. For larger stones >2 cm percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the standard treatment modality.
    Der Urologe 03/2012; 51(3):368-71. · 0.46 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study provides an update on the technological aspects of the methods for active removal of renal stones. Currently, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) are the available options. Findings are based upon recent literature from the PubMed database and the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines. ESWL remains the option of choice for stones with diameter ≤ 20 mm due to its low invasive character, whereas PCNL is the standard for stones with diameter > 20 mm because of its high stone-free rates. Although ESWL treatment has become more patient friendly, its efficacy has not improved. On the other hand, URS has gained renewed interest due to new technological developments and improved treatment methods.
    Journal of Medical Engineering & Technology 03/2012; 36(3):147-55.