Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clayman RV, Surya V, Miller RP, Castaneda-Zuniga WR, Amplatz K, Lange PH (1983) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy. An approach to branched and staghorn renal calculi. JAMA 250(1):73–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Gupta A, Bensalah K, Cadeddu JA, Lotan Y, Pearle MS (2009) Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol 181(3):1163–1168 (Epub 2009 Jan 18)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rebuck DA, Macejko A, Bhalani V, Ramos P, Nadler RB (2011) The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology 77(3):564–568 (Epub 2010 Dec 15)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ugurlu İM, Akman T, Binbay M, Tekinarslan E, Akbulut MF, Özgör F, Müslümanoğlu AY (2015) Outcomes of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for stone disease in patients with anomalous kidneys. Urolithiasis 43(1):77–82

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Afshar K, McLorie G, Papanikolaou F et al (2004) Outcome of small residual stone fragments following shock wave lithotripsy in children. J Urol 172:1600–1603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dincel N, Resorlu B, Unsal A, Tepeler A, Silay MS, Armağan A, Diri A, Sancaktutar AA, Ziypak T, Mir S (2013) Are small residual stone fragments really insignificant in children? J Pediatr Surg 48(4):840–844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Newman DM, Lingeman JE (1989) Management of upper urinary tract calculi with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Compr Ther 15:35–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK et al (2002) Post-ESWL, clinically insignificant residual stones: reality or myth? Urology 59:20–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. El-Assmy A, El-Nahas AR, Harraz AM, El Demerdash Y, Elsaadany MM, El-Halwagy S, Sheir KZ (2015) clinically insignificant residual fragments: is it an appropriate term in children? Urology 86(3):593–598 (Epub 2015 Jun 28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Beaghler MA, Poon MW, Dushinski JW, Lingeman JE (1999) Expanding role of flexible nephroscopy in the upper urinary tract. J Endourol 13(2):93–97 (review)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sountoulides P, Metaxa L, Cindolo L (2013) Is computed tomography mandatory for the detection of residual stone fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy? J Endourol 27:1341–1348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Portis AJ, Laliberte MA, Drake S, Holtz C, Rosenberg MS, Bretzke CA (2006) Intraoperative fragment detection during percutaneous nephrolithotomy: evaluation of high magnification rotational fluoroscopy combined with aggressive nephroscopy. J Urol 175(1):162–165 (discussion 165-6)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Beck EM, Riehle RA (1991) The fate of residual fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy monotherapy of infection stones. J Urol 145:6–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lao M, Kogan BA, White MD, Feustel PJ (2014) High recurrence rate at 5-year follow up in children after upper urinary tract stone surgery. J Urol 191(2):440–444

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fine JK, Pak CY, Preminger GM (1995) Effect of medical management and residual fragments on recurrent stone formation following shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 153:27–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pietrow PK, Pope JC 4th, Adams MC et al (2002) Clinical outcome of pediatric stone disease. J Urol 167(2 Pt 1):670–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sharma AP, Filler G (2010) Epidemiology of pediatric urolithiasis. Indian J Urol 26:516–522

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kalorin CM, Zabinski A, Okpareke I, White M, Kogan BA (2009) Pediatric urinary stone disease—does age matter? J Urol 181(5):2267–2271 (discussion 2271, Epub 2009 Mar 17)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hein S, Miernik A, Wilhelm K, Adams F, Schlager D, Herrmann TR, Rassweiler JJ, Schoenthaler M (2016) Clinical significance of residual fragments in 2015: impact, detection, and how to avoid them. World J Urol 34(6):771–778 (Epub 2015 Oct 23, review)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Resorlu B, Kara C, Resorlu EB, Unsal A (2011) Effectiveness of ultrasonography in the postoperative follow-up of pediatric patients undergoing ureteroscopic stone manipulation. Pediatr Surg Int 27(12):1337–1341 (Epub 2011 Sep 28)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Altunrende F, Tefekli A, Stein RJ, Autorino R, Yuruk E, Laydner H et al (2011) Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol 25:941–945

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parsons JK, Lancini V, Shetye K, Regan F, Potter SR, Jarrett TW (2003) Urinary stone size: comparison of abdominal plain radiography and non contrast CT measurements. J Endourol 17(9):725–728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gaucher O, Cormier L, Deneuville M, Régent D, Mangin P, Hubert J (1998) Which is the best performing imaging method for demonstrating residual renal calculi? Prog Urol 8(4):493–501 (French)

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Denstedt JD, Clayman RV, Picus DD (1991) Comparison of endoscopic and radiological residual fragment rate following percutaneous nephrolithotripsy. J Urol 145:703

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Bimalesh Purkait, Rahul Janak Sinha, Ankur Bansal, Ashok Kumar Sokhal, Kawaljit Singh & Vishwajeet Singh

Authors
  1. Bimalesh Purkait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rahul Janak Sinha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ankur Bansal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashok Kumar Sokhal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kawaljit Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Vishwajeet Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bimalesh Purkait.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Funding

No potential source of funding.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval has been taken from Institutional Ethical Committee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purkait, B., Sinha, R.J., Bansal, A. et al. What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney. Urolithiasis 46, 285–290 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation