Stone disease

2020 ◽  
pp. 347-440
Author(s):  
Suzanne Biers ◽  
Noel Armenakas ◽  
Alastair Lamb ◽  
Stephen Mark ◽  
John Reynard ◽  
...  

This chapter covers the treatment options for kidney, ureteric, and bladder stones. It takes the reader through the diagnosis, presentation, and imaging, before detailing different treatments and management and diagnosis in difficult or uncommon situations.

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-43
Author(s):  
Karl H. Pang ◽  
Saiful Miah ◽  
Mark D. Haynes ◽  
Neil E. Oakley

Ureteric strictures can be caused by traumatic pelvic surgery, urolithiasis and instrumentation. There are various treatment options for ureteric stricture, including laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation. A 56-year-old female with a history of chronic left pelviureteric junction obstruction presented with urosepsis secondary to right-sided urolithiasis. The patient had a left nephrectomy and developed right-sided ureteric stricture following repeated ureteroscopy to manage her stone disease. The treatment with ureteric stenting was unsuccessful. Here we present a case on the feasibility of laparoscopic reimplantation for ureteric stricture in a solitary kidney to preserve renal function and avoid further ureteroscopy or nephrostomies.


Author(s):  
John Reynard ◽  
Ben Turney

The majority of bladder stones in Western practice are secondary to underlying pathology—bladder outlet obstruction due to benign prostatic enlargement in men and urethral obstruction from pelvic prolapse or cystocele in women, chronic infection in the neuropathic or augmented bladder, or in the neobladder. While the pathology of endemic bladder stones remains as it always was, the advent of augmentation cystoplasty and rising use of the neobladder after cystectomy has, through a different pathological mechanism, led to a rise in frequency of bladder stones. The mode of presentation of bladder stones and diagnostic technique are reviewed in this chapter. Treatment options are determined, to a significant degree, by the clinical context in which the stone arise, the major determinant of the approach to such stones being the calibre of the conduit (urethra or Mitrofanoff) through which access to the bladder is achieved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 100-110
Author(s):  
V.I. Rudenko ◽  
◽  
Yu.L. Demidko ◽  
I.G. Krayev ◽  
◽  
...  

Introduction. Purine dysmetabolism is occured by increased production of uric acid, which leads to hyperuricemia and hyperuricuria. The most common forms of purine metabolism disorders are the uratenephropathy, gout, and asymptomatic hyperuricemia. Purpose. To evaluate the data published from 1992 to 2021 on the prevalence, forms of purine metabolism disorders, diagnostics and methods of their treatment. Two hundred and seventy original publications were identified, of which 37 were selected and analyzed. Materials and methods. The search results in the scientific database PubMed, Web of Sciеnce, Sciеnce Direct were analyzed for the queries «urates», «gout», «uric acid», «purine metabolism», «hyperuricosuria», «treatment of urate nephrolithiasis», «luteolin; quercetin», «Smilax riparia». Results. Urates are formed as a result of the metabolism of purine bases, two-thirds of which are excreted with urine. The most common form of purine dysmetabolism is urate nephrolithiasis, which accounts for up to 10% of all forms of kidney stone disease. The main risk factors include low urinary pH, decreased urine output and hyperuricosuria. Treatment options for such stones depend on the size, chemical composition, location, and concomitant diseases. The main methods of treatment are conservative therapy and surgical interventions. Conclusions. Since the available conservative therapy may not be suitable for all patients, and surgical intervention carries certain risks, a unique herbal complex «Uralix®» was created to treat patients with urate stones in the kidneys and urinary tract. Its components luteolin, quercetin and sarsaparilla extract reduce uric acid levels and improve renal function in urate nephropathy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dipesh Kumar Gupta ◽  
S M Mishra

Background: Primary vesical stones are common in children in underdeveloped and developing countries. The treatment options available for managing bladder calculi include transurethral cystolithotripsy, open cystolithotomy and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Although the majority of vesical calculi in adults can be treated by transurethral lithotripsy, this procedure is restricted in children due to the narrow caliber of the urethra. For this reason, percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL) is a good choice as a safe and effective method for the treatment of bladder stones in children.Aim of the Study: The study was aimed to evaluate outcome of PCCL in pediatric population coming with vesiculolithiasis in our center.Materials and Methods: Pediatric age group patients diagnosed as vesical calculus were undertaken for PCCL. Ten patients who presented between November 2014 to December 2015, were included. The procedure was done under general anesthesia. After performing cystoscopy, suprapubic puncture was made and tract dilated up to 26 Fr. Nephroscope was used for visualization and pneumatic lithotripsy for fragmentation of the stone followed by removal of st nd all fragments. Perurethral and suprapubic catheters were placed at the end to be removed on 1 and 2 post operative day, respectively.Results: Median age of the patients was 5.5 (3-13) years. Majority were male patients from hilly region of western Nepal. Mean stone size was 15 mm. All patients were rendered stone free with average operative time of 32.2 minutes. Except one minor complication of mucosal injury patients were discharged after mean hospital stay of 3.9 days.Conclusion: Percutaneous suprapubic lithotripsy is a safe and effective method for the treatment of bladder stones in children. It is fast and associated with negligible complications.JNGMC Vol. 14 No. 1 July 2016, Page: 18-20


INDIAN DRUGS ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (11) ◽  
pp. 7-18
Author(s):  
D. S. Baghel ◽  
◽  
S. Chopra ◽  
A. Bhatia ◽  
S. Tamilvanan

An age-old syndrome which possesses not only multifactorial etiological origins but also often associated with high rate of remission-rebound frequency during its management time is kidney stone (termed as urolithiasis). In Ayurveda, this syndrome is called as mutrakricchra and it is one of the most distressing syndromes among the group of urinary disorder conditions attached to human beings till today. Even Acharya Sushruta, a pioneer in the art of surgery, described the root causes and management of urolithiasis. In modern medical practice, plenty of management/treatment options are available which starts from the use of uresis-promoting agent to dietary or nutritional supplement intake. Approaches developed by amalgamating the ayurvedic concept/principle with modern medical practice is a promising strategy and even welcome addition for urolithiasis management. This review provides a comprehensive insight on how the amalgamation of ayurvedic concept with modern medical practice helps in urolithiasis management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Abdel Raheem ◽  
Ibrahim Alowidah ◽  
Mohamed Soliman ◽  
Mefarrih Haresy ◽  
Ali Almozeni ◽  
...  

Abstract Background COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed healthcare systems and limited access to surgical care. Urolithiasis can lead to emergencies and affect renal function during long-term follow-up. Therefore, timely and appropriate treatment is essential. Main text This is a non-systematic review of the recently published recommendations regarding urolithiasis treatment options during COVID-19. Fourteen publications were the basis of our review. Regarding anesthesia methods, the optimal methods are still unknown. During COVID-19, most of the endo-urologists changed their routine clinical practice and elective surgical treatment approaches. Despite decreasing number of emergency visits and admissions for stone disease, patients tend to have leukocytosis, higher creatinine levels, increased grade 3 and 4 hydronephrosis, and higher incidence of complications compared to non-COVID-19 time. Several alarming indications if present, intervention should be performed within 24 h to prevent irreversible kidney damage, disease progression, or even death. Some endo-urologists prefer definitive stone treatment over temporarily drainage to reduce the number of emergency room visits and hospital admissions, except if infection is present or staged treatment is planned. Several clinical scenarios of non-emergency and non-urgent urinary stones are present; thus, endo-urologists should appropriately weigh patient’s risk and surgery benefit to decide to the proper intervention time. If risks outweighed benefits to the patient, postpone the surgery. Renal colic should be managed with medical expulsive therapy and proper pain control with close follow-up just in case it becomes an emergency. Indwelling JJ stent removal or exchange is a matter of debate; some endo-urologists recommend removing, while others recommend postponing. Conclusion Treatment options for urinary stones have markedly changed during COVID-19 pandemic. The optimal anesthesia methods are still unknown. Emergency intervention is a must if any alarming indications exist. Emergency cases tend to have higher incidence of complications compared to non-COVID-19 time. For non-emergency and non-urgent urolithiasis, endo-urologists should make judicious treatment decision to prioritize urolithiasis treatment, and they should weigh benefits and risks before surgery.


2013 ◽  
pp. 427-490
Author(s):  
John Reynard ◽  
Simon Brewster ◽  
Suzanne Biers

Kidney stones: epidemiology 428 Kidney stones: types and predisposing factors 432 Kidney stones: mechanisms of formation 434 Factors predisposing to specific stone types 436 Evaluation of the stone former 440 Kidney stones: presentation and diagnosis 442 Kidney stone treatment options: watchful waiting and the natural history of stones ...


2007 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
J. E. Elliott

The first known specimen of urological interest was a vesicle calculi dated to 5000 BC, found by Elliot Smith in 1901, in an ancient tomb in Egypt. Since these ancient times, urolithiasis has been a condition which fascinated and frustrated the medical world, both in understanding of its etiology and in how to treat patients afflicted with such stones. Medical management of urinary calculi has a complex and suspect past; when such therapies failed, as their mystical and unscientific approaches often did, patients sometimes resorted to more drastic and dramatic means such as lithotomy. Lithotomy was known since early times in India and Persia; when it was introduced to Europe is unclear. Writings by Susruta in India describe early forms of the procedure, and techniques were improved by Celsus of Rome (1st Century AD), remaining in use, largely unchanged until the eighteenth Century. Marianus Sanctus (1490-1550) described a technique, the “grand appareil” which superseded the Celsus method, and other approaches by Franco (1500-1570), Jacques de Beaulieu (1651-1714), Johann Rau (1658-1709) and William Cheselden (1688-1752) gained and lost dominance over the centuries. Perhaps most interesting about lithotomy was the development of the tools used in its practice. From the beginning, the various knives, forceps, dilators and sounds became ever more complicated, intricate and gruesome looking, resembling more the armamentarium of a torture master than the curative tools of a physician. As endoscopic techniques began and evolved, the necessity to make large incisions for stone removal decreased. Nonetheless, the approaches and instrumentation used to treat bladder stones helped shape the practice of urology and contributed to the continuing goal of minimizing invasion of the patient while still providing effective treatment of stone disease and other genitourinary problems. Murphy LJT. The History of Urology. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1972. Chevalier RL. Kidney and urologic disorders in the age of enlightenment. Am J Nephrol 1994; 14(4-6):461-6. Herman, JR. Urology; a view through the retrospectroscope. Hagerstown, Md.: Harper & Row, 1973.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Roberts ◽  
Dedan Opondo ◽  
Linda Nott ◽  
Hassan Razvi ◽  
Jean De la Rosette ◽  
...  

<p><strong>Introduction:</strong> The primary objective of this study was to compare surgical management options for various urolithiasis scenarios that urologists would choose for themselves vs. the options they would recommend for their patients. The secondary objective was to identify the common recommended treatments for upper urinary tract stones of various sizes and locations.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> Two surveys were sent by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) to members of the Endourological Society. Standard demographic information was collected. The first survey asked the urologists to recommend treatment for urolithiasis in 10 different scenarios assuming that they were the patient with stone disease. The second survey, sent eight months later, asked urologists to recommend treatment for the same 10 scenarios for a theoretical patient. Only urologists who responded to the first and the second survey were included. Recommended treatment options were compared between the surveys. Agreement between the two scenarios was measured with Cohen’s kappa. Surveys were conducted on the Internet using SurveyMonkey™. All statistical analyses were performed using R statistical program version 2.12.2.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> The two surveys had response rates of 78% (160/205) and 84% (172/205), respectively with urologists from 38 countries. Median experience of respondents was seven years (range: 2‒30). The majority of respondents, 117 (75%), were affiliated with academic hospitals. Recommended treatments for stone disease in different scenarios were not entirely consistent when the urologists considered themselves as the patients compared to the choice they might recommend for their patients. Cohen’s kappa ranged from 0.292‒0.534 for the different scenarios. Overall, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) were the most commonly chosen treatment options, with medical expulsive therapy (MET) and laparoscopy being the least recommended by urologists for themselves, as well as for their patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Although urologists were not entirely consistent in their recommendations for stone treatment, they generally followed the “golden rule” and treated their patients as they would want to be treated. The most commonly recommended treatments for upper urinary tract stones were SWL and URS.</p>


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Manolis Pratsinis ◽  
Christa Babst ◽  
Janine Langenauer ◽  
Hans-Peter Schmid ◽  
Alberto Piller ◽  
...  

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Patients nowadays often search video-sharing platforms for online patient education materials. Since previous assessments of urological videos were limited to English, we systematically assessed the quality of videos on treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), prostate cancer (PCa), and urinary stone disease (USD) in 4 different languages on YouTube using validated instruments. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The search for videos on YouTube addressing treatment options of BPH, PCa, and USD was performed in October 2020 in ­English, French, German, and Italian. Assessed parameters included basic data (e.g., number of views), grade of misinformation, and reporting of conflicts of interest. Quality of content was analyzed using the validated DISCERN questionnaire. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 240 videos (60 videos in each language) were analyzed. Videos on USD in English had the highest number of views (median views 271,878 [65,313–2,513,007]). The median overall quality of videos assessed showed a <i>moderate</i> quality (2.5–3.4 points out of 5 points for DISCERN item 16). Median total DISCERN score of all videos divided by language showed very similar results: English (39.75 points), French (38 points), German (39.5 points), and Italian (39 points). Comparing the different diseases, videos about BPH showed the highest median scores, especially in German language (median score 43.25 points). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Videos concerning the treatment of BPH, PCa, and USD have a low to moderate quality of content, with no differences seen between the languages assessed. These findings further support the notion of improved patient information materials on video platforms such as YouTube.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document