Active treatment of renal stones in pelvic ectopic kidney: systematic review of literature.

Q1 Medicine
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica Pub Date : 2020-12-01 Epub Date: 2020-04-16 DOI:10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03792-3
Matteo Salvi, Gianluca Muto, Agostino Tuccio, Antonio A Grosso, Andrea Mari, Alfonso Crisci, Marco Carini, Andrea Minervini
{"title":"Active treatment of renal stones in pelvic ectopic kidney: systematic review of literature.","authors":"Matteo Salvi,&nbsp;Gianluca Muto,&nbsp;Agostino Tuccio,&nbsp;Antonio A Grosso,&nbsp;Andrea Mari,&nbsp;Alfonso Crisci,&nbsp;Marco Carini,&nbsp;Andrea Minervini","doi":"10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03792-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic obstruction and stones formation are common in pelvic ectopic kidney (PEK), and stone treatment in such conditions can be challenging. Aim of this systematic review was to examine all the available active treatment modalities for PEK stones in order to critically appraise their advantages and limitations.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A search on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify literature focused on the active treatment of PEK stones. Original articles, case report and case series were included in the search. The systematic review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA checklist. The study period went from inception of databases to October 2019.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Of the 256 articles identified, 23 met the inclusion criteria. 334 patients were included in the studies and 119 had stones in PEK. Five patients were treated with SWL, 40 with ureterorenoscopy, 37 with percutaneous nephrolithotomy both by ultrasound/X-Ray or lap-assisted puncture, and 37 with minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot assisted pyelolithotomy. Overall, stone free rate after first treatment was higher in minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot assisted pyelolithotomy (97.2%) compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (84.96%) and ureterorenoscopy studies (65.94%). The higher complication rate was reported in percutaneous nephrolithotomy not lap-assisted (33.3%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The choice of the approach depends on different factors such as stone size, density and location in accordance with upper urinary tract alterations, kidney anatomy and operator experience. The choice of a retrograde, percutaneous or lap/robot approach should be carefully selected evaluating upper urinary tract anatomy and stone features.</p>","PeriodicalId":49015,"journal":{"name":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","volume":" ","pages":"691-697"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.20.03792-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/4/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Introduction: Chronic obstruction and stones formation are common in pelvic ectopic kidney (PEK), and stone treatment in such conditions can be challenging. Aim of this systematic review was to examine all the available active treatment modalities for PEK stones in order to critically appraise their advantages and limitations.

Evidence acquisition: A search on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify literature focused on the active treatment of PEK stones. Original articles, case report and case series were included in the search. The systematic review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA checklist. The study period went from inception of databases to October 2019.

Evidence synthesis: Of the 256 articles identified, 23 met the inclusion criteria. 334 patients were included in the studies and 119 had stones in PEK. Five patients were treated with SWL, 40 with ureterorenoscopy, 37 with percutaneous nephrolithotomy both by ultrasound/X-Ray or lap-assisted puncture, and 37 with minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot assisted pyelolithotomy. Overall, stone free rate after first treatment was higher in minimally invasive laparoscopic or robot assisted pyelolithotomy (97.2%) compared to percutaneous nephrolithotomy (84.96%) and ureterorenoscopy studies (65.94%). The higher complication rate was reported in percutaneous nephrolithotomy not lap-assisted (33.3%).

Conclusions: The choice of the approach depends on different factors such as stone size, density and location in accordance with upper urinary tract alterations, kidney anatomy and operator experience. The choice of a retrograde, percutaneous or lap/robot approach should be carefully selected evaluating upper urinary tract anatomy and stone features.

盆腔异位肾肾结石的积极治疗:文献系统综述。
慢性梗阻和结石形成在盆腔异位肾(PEK)中很常见,这种情况下的结石治疗可能具有挑战性。本系统综述的目的是检查所有可用的PEK结石的积极治疗方式,以便批判性地评估其优点和局限性。证据获取:在Medline、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行检索,以确定有关PEK结石积极治疗的文献。原始文章、病例报告和病例系列被纳入检索。系统评价按照PRISMA检查表进行。研究期间从数据库建立到2019年10月。证据综合:256篇文献中,23篇符合纳入标准。334例患者纳入研究,其中119例PEK结石。5例采用SWL, 40例采用输尿管镜,37例采用超声/ x线或膝上辅助穿刺经皮肾镜取石,37例采用微创腹腔镜或机器人辅助肾盂取石。总体而言,微创腹腔镜或机器人辅助肾盂取石术首次治疗后的结石清除率(97.2%)高于经皮肾取石术(84.96%)和输尿管镜检查(65.94%)。无膝上辅助的经皮肾镜取石术并发症发生率较高(33.3%)。结论:根据上尿路病变、肾脏解剖及术者经验,选择不同的入路方式,如结石大小、密度、位置等。应仔细选择逆行、经皮或膝上/机器人入路,评估上尿路解剖和结石特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica
Minerva Urologica E Nefrologica UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica publishes scientific papers on nephrology and urology. Manuscripts may be submitted in the form of Minerva opinion editorials, editorial comments, original articles, video illustrated articles, review articles and letters to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信