The Role of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Kidney Stones of Upper Urinary System Anomalies

1Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Introduction: Fusion, pelvic, and duplicated urinary tract anomalies of the kidney are rarely seen. There might be some difficulties in the stone treatment, in the administration of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and laparoscopic pyelolithotomy procedures in these patients due to the anatomical variations in kidneys with anomalies. Aim: To evaluate RIRS results on patients with upper urinary tract anomalies. Materials and methods: Data of 35 patients with horseshoe kidney, pelvic ectopic kidney, and double urinary system in two referral centers were reviewed retrospectively. Demographic data, stone characteristics, and postoperative characteristics of the patients were evaluated. Results: The mean age of patients (n=35, 6 women and 29 men) was 50 years. Thirty-nine stones were detected. The total mean stone surface area in all anomaly groups was found to be 140 mm2, and the mean operative time was 54.7±24.7 minutes. The rate of using ureteral access sheath (UAS) was very low (5/35). Eight patients needed auxiliary treatment after the operation. The residual rate, which was 33.3% in the first 15 days, decreased to 22.6% in the third month follow-ups. Four patients had minor complications. In patients with horseshoe kidney and duplicated ureteral systems, it was observed that the risk factor increasing the presence of residual stones was the total stone volume. Conclusions: RIRS for kidneys with low and medium stone volume anomalies is an effective treatment method with high stone-free and low complication rates.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ozmerdiven, G., Güler, Y., Cicek, C., Gunseren, K. O., & Kilicarslan, H. (2023). The Role of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery in Kidney Stones of Upper Urinary System Anomalies. Folia Medica, 65(2), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.3897/folmed.65.e77728

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free