1 / 56

Surgical Treatment of Renal and Ureteral Stones

Surgical Treatment of Renal and Ureteral Stones. Herb Wiser. Treatment Modalities. ESWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) Ureteroscopy PCNL ( percutaneous nephrolithotomy ) Open or laparoscopic surgery Ureterolithotomy Anatrophic nephrolithtomy. ESWL. “Bath tub” treatment

yule
Télécharger la présentation

Surgical Treatment of Renal and Ureteral Stones

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Surgical Treatment of Renal and Ureteral Stones Herb Wiser

  2. Treatment Modalities • ESWL (extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy) • Ureteroscopy • PCNL (percutaneousnephrolithotomy) • Open or laparoscopic surgery • Ureterolithotomy • Anatrophicnephrolithtomy

  3. ESWL • “Bath tub” treatment • Shock waves to break stones • Non-invasive • Results worse for Bigger stones Stones located in the lower pole of the kidney Hard stones

  4. Electrohydrolic (Spark gap) Energy Sources and Configurations Electromagnetic Piezoelectric

  5. Mechanism of Action – Electrohydraulic • Power source at F1 • Generated in water medium • Contained in a ellipsoid shield • Waves (energy) concentrated at F2

  6. Prognostic factors for ESWL success Wang LJ et al. EurUrol 2005 • <900 HU (72% success) vs >900 (35%) • Size <12mm (78%) vs >12 (26%) • Non-Lower pole (70%) vs Lower pole (46%) Pareek G et al. Urology 2005 • 24/29 pts (83%) with SSD <10cm were stone free • 6/35 pts (17%) with SSD >10cm were stone free

  7. Success Rates ESWL • Renal - 55-75% (lowest for lower pole stones) • Proximal Ureter • <1cm – 90% • >1cm – 70% • Mid/Distal Ureter • <1cm – 85% • >1cm – 75%

  8. Contraindications to ESWL • Pregnancy • Coagulopathy • UTI • Intrarenal vascular calcifications • Renal artery aneurysm or AAA

  9. Complications of ESWL • Retroperitoneal Hematoma • >25% incidence on imaging • <0.5% clinically significant

  10. Complications of ESWL

  11. Complications of ESWL • Pain from stone fragment passage • 25-50% of pts • Steinstrasse • ~5% of pts http://radiologyinthai.blogspot.com/2010_12_01_archive.html

  12. Complications of ESWL • ? Long term effects of ESWL • DM and HTN • Retrospective studies show increased incidence of DM and HTN in stone formers • Is this because a stone formers have worse dietary habits? • Prospective trials show no increase in DM/HTN, but follow up is limited (a few years)

  13. Ureteroscopy • Placing small scope into ureter or kidney • Flexible or rigid scopes • Remove the stone (‘basket’, ‘loop’, ‘snare’) • Break the stone - Laser • May leave a stent (surgeon’s discretion)

  14. Ureteroscopes

  15. Flexible Ureteroscopy http://www.windsorurology.co.uk/ Grasso M. Arch EspUrol 2008.

  16. Image Quality

  17. Laser Lithotripsy

  18. Laser Lithotripsy

  19. Stone Basketing

  20. Ureteroscope Considerations • Flexible Scope outer sizes 8.5-10 Fr • Working channel 3.5Fr • Semirigid Scope @ tip 7-9 Fr proximally 6-13.5 Fr one is 4.5/6.5 Fr • Working channel up to 3-6 Fr

  21. Laser Lithotripsy • Holmium:YAG laser is most common type for laser lithotripsy • Erbium:YAG and Thulium lasers under development, potentially superior to Ho:YAG, not widespread • Very limited depth of penetration (0.4mm) • Limits tissue damage • Highly effective at lithotripsy

  22. Success Rates Ureteroscopy – Old Data • Renal - ~70-80% (lowest for lower pole stones) • Stone clearance decreases with increasing stone size • Proximal Ureter - ~80% • Mid Ureter – 80-90% • Distal Ureter - ~95%

  23. Complications of URS • Ureteral Perforation • ~5% • Treatment is stenting (~6 weeks) • Can result in stricture in the long term (1% of all URS) • Ureteral Stricture • Could be due to stone or URS • Ureteral Avulsion • Rare but really, really bad

  24. Stents • Polymer tubes from kidney to bladder • Keep the ureter open • Dilates the ureter • Patient removal vs surgeon removal • Symptoms • Bladder spasms • Flank pain • hematuria

  25. Stents People generally HATE them, but they are a necessary evil.

  26. Percutaneous Approach • Big stones (>2cm) • Stones likely to be struvite • Difficult anatomy (calycealdiverticulum, etc) • ESWL failures

  27. PCNL

  28. http://www.actasurologicas.info

  29. Lithotripsy for PCNL • Ultrasonic Lithotriptor • Pneumatic Lithotriptor • Laser (Ho:YAG)

  30. Ultrasonic Lithotriptor • Electric current stimulates piezoelectric crystal • Crystals expand and contract • Creates vibrations at ~25,000 Hz • Transmitted to tip of probe • “Drills” the stone • Strictly mechanical energy • No heat, cavitation or shock waves • Suctions fragments through the center of the wand

  31. Pneumatic Lithotripsy • Like a jackhammer • Depression of foot pedal forces compressed air to handpiece • Metal projectile is propelled • Repetitive mechanical pounding • Mechanical energy transferred to tip • Fragmentation by compression forces

  32. Success Rates PCNL • Renal stones (even staghorns) • 80-90% • Proximal ureteral stones • 85% • Stone clearance rates are affected by renal anatomy and adequacy of access

  33. Access for PCNL • In the US • 80-90% by IR • 10-20% by urology • When IR involved, can be just for initial PCN tube or they may also dilate the tract and place the final PCN tube, highly variable

  34. Contraindications to PCNL • UTI • Coagulopathy • No safe access possible

More Related