New options of endoscopic treatment for kidney and ureter stones in obese patients


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Effective urolithiasis treatment, especially in overweight patients has a considerable medical and social implication. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) in prone position of the patient are standard treatment options for kidney and ureter stones. These interventions are not always effective in patients with concomitant obesity and are associated with technical difficulties and an increased risk of complications. The study included 175 patients with obesity. The first group consisted of 96 (54.8%) patients treated with transurethral contact lithotripsy. The 2nd group consisted of 54 (30.9%) patients who underwent PCNL in the supine position. The third group comprised 25 (14.3%) patients with multiple stones of kidney and ureter, who underwent combined transurethral and percutaneous intervention in the supine position. The 1st and 3rd group had a higher prevalence of patients with II degree of obesity, in the 2nd group - with I degree of obesity. The mean duration of surgery in 1st group was 43.4 min, in the 2nd - 70.3 min and in the third - 84.6 min. Method of kidney drainage depended mainly on the presence, location and size of residual stone fragments. The average duration of the kidney drainage stent in patients of the 1st group was 39 days (ureteral catheter - 1.3 days). In all patients of the 2nd and 3rd groups, at the final stage of the operation a nephrostomy tube was placed for an average of 2.7 days. The average postoperative hospital stay was 2.9 days in the 1st group, 4.1 days in the 2nd group and 4.5 days in the third group. In the 1st group, the stone-free status was achieved in 81 (84.4%) patients. Another 10 (10.4%) patients later needed ESWL for the complete disposal of the stones. In the 2nd group, the complete clearance of kidney stones was achieved in 49 (90.7%) patients. Another 3 (5.6%) patients required added ESWL to achieve the stone- free status. In the third group of patients stone free status was reached in 22 (88%) cases.
In the remaining patients residual stone fragments were not clinically important. The most prevalent postoperative complication in all groups was postoperative pyelonephritis. Taking into account high efficiency of transurethral lithotripsy and PCNL in the supine position, as well as their combinations we can recommend these interventions to treat patients with kidney and ureteral stones and concomitant obesity.

About the authors

A G Martov

City Hospital № 57

City Hospital № 57

S V Dutov

City Hospital № 57

City Hospital № 57

A S Andronov

City Hospital № 57

City Hospital № 57

Z I Kilchukov

Republican Clinical Hospital, Ministry of Health of Kabardino-Balkar Republic

Republican Clinical Hospital, Ministry of Health of Kabardino-Balkar Republic

R A Tahaev

Department of Endoscopic Urology

Department of Endoscopic Urology

References

  1. Willett W., Dietz W., Colditz G. Guidelines for healthy weight.
  2. Попова И.Р. Клиническая характеристика и распространенность ожирения по данным поликлинического отделения многопрофильной клиники. Дис. докт. мед. наук. М., 2013.
  3. Taylor E., Stampfer M, Curhan G. Obesity, weight gain, and the risk of kidney stones. JAMA. 2005;293:455-462. 4.
  4. DuffeyB., PedroR., KriedbergC., WeilandD., Melquist J., Ikramuddin S., Kellogg T, Makhlouf A.A., Monga M. Lithogenic risk factors in the morbidly obese population. J. Urol. 2008;179:1401-1406.
  5. Stevens J., Cai J., Pamuk E., Williamson D., Thun M., Wood J. The effect of age on the association between body-mass index and mortality. N. Engl. J. Med. 1998;338:1-7.
  6. Дутов С.В., Мартов А.Г., Андронов А.С. Чрескожная нефролитотрипсия на спине. Урология. 2011;2:76-80.
  7. Murota-Kawano A., Ohya K., Sekine H. Outpatient basis extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureter stones: efficacy of the third generation lithotripter as the first line treatment. Int. J. Urol. 2008;15:210-215.
  8. Hammad F., Balakrishnan A. The effect of fat and nonfat components of the skin-to-stone distance on shockwave lithotripsy outcome. J. Endourol. 2010;24:1825-1829.
  9. Delakas D., Karyotis I., Daskalopoulos G., Lianos E., Mavromanolakis E. Independent predictors of failure of shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones employing a second-generation lithotripter. J. Endourol. 2003;17:201-205.
  10. Olivi B., Vedrine N., Costilles T., Boiteux J.P., Guy L. Extra corporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with body mass index over 35 kg/ m2. Prog. Urol. 2011;21:254-259.
  11. Munoz R., Tirolien P., Belhamou S., Desta M., Grimberg R., Dulys P., Chevallier H. Treatment of reno-ureteral lithiasis with ESWL in obese patients. Apropos of 150 patients. Arch. Esp. Urol. 2003;56:933-938.
  12. Pump B., Talleruphuus U., Christensen N., Warberg J., Norsk P. Effects of supine, prone and lateral positions on cardiovascular and renal variables in humans. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 2002;283:R174-180.
  13. Doizi S., Letendre J., Bonneau C., Gil Diez de Medina S., Traxer O. Comparative study of the treatment of renal stones with flexible ureterorenoscopy in normal weight, obese, and morbidly obese patients. Urology. 2015;85(1):38-44.
  14. Chew B., Zavaglia B., Paterson R., Teichman J., Lange D., Zappavigna C., Matlaga B., Nunez-Nateras R., Bruhn A., Altamar H., Humphreys M., Shah O., Miller N. A multicenter comparison of the safety and effectiveness of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy in obese and normal weight patients. J. Endourol. 2013;27(6):710-714. 15.
  15. Valdivia Uria J., Valle Gerhold J., Lopez Lopez J., Villarroya Rodriguez S., Ambroj Navarro C., Ramirez Fabian M., Rodriguez Bazalo J.M., Sanchez Elipe M.A. Technique and complications of percutaneous nephroscopy: experience with 557 patients in the supine position. J. Urol. 1998;160:1975-1978. 16.
  16. De Sio M., Autorino R., Quarto G., Calabro F., Damiano R., Giugliano F., Mordente S., D'Armiento M. Modified supine versus prone position in percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones treatable with a single percutaneous access: a prospective randomized trial. Eur. Urol. 2008;54:196-202.
  17. Scoffone C., Cracco C., Cossu M., Grande S., Poggio M., Scarpa R. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy? Urol. 2008;54/6:1393-1403.
  18. Grasso M., Nord R., Bagley D. Prone split leg and flank roll positioning: simultaneous anterograde and retrograde access to the upper urinary tract. J. Endourol. 1993;7:307-310.
  19. Shoma A., Erakay I., El-Kenawy M., El-Kappany H. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the supine position: technical aspects and functional outcome compared with the prone technique. Urology. 2002;60:388-392.
  20. Rana A., Bhojwani J., Junejo N., Das Bhagia S. Tubeless PCNL with patient in supine position: procedure for all seasons? - with comprehensive technique. Urology. 2008;71:581-585.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies