Searching the Resource Information Network
Are you sure you want to leave this community? Leaving the community will revoke any permissions you have been granted in this community.
Controversies exist on the influence of lower pole anatomy (infundibular pelvic angle, IPA; infundibular length, IL; and infundibular width, IW) for success and outcomes related to the treatment of stones in the lower pole. We wanted to look at the role of lower pole anatomy to study clinical outcomes in patients treated for isolated lower pole stones (LPS) using retrograde intra renal surgery (RIRS), and also perform a review to look at the published literature on the influence of pelvicalyceal anatomy on success with RIRS. Data were prospectively collected (June 2013-June 2016) for all patients who underwent RIRS for LPS, and the imaging was then retrospectively reviewed to calculate the IPA, IL and IW using the Elbahnasy method. A systematic review was also conducted for all English language articles between January 2000 and April 2018, reporting on the impact of pelvicaliceal anatomy on RIRS. A total of 108 patients with LPS were included with a male to female ratio of 2:3 and a mean age of 54.7 years. The mean lower pole stone size was 9.3 mm (range 3-29 mm) and 102/108 (94.4%) patients were stone free (SF) at the end of their procedure. While steep IPA (< 30°), operative time duration and larger stone size were significant predictors of failure, the placement of ureteric access sheath, IW and IL did not influence treatment outcomes. Six studies (460 patients) met the inclusion criteria for our review. The IPA, IW, IL for failure ranged from 26° to 38°, 5.5-7 mm and 24-34 mm, respectively. The SFR ranged from 78 to 88% with a metaanalysis showing IPA as the most important predictor of treatment outcomes for LPS. Infundibular pelvic angle seems to be the most important predictor for the treatment of LPS using RIRS. Pelvicalyceal anatomy in conjunction with stone size and hardness seem to dictate the success, and decisions on the type of surgical interventions should reflect this.
Pubmed ID: 31372691
Publication data is provided by the National Library of Medicine ® and PubMed ®. Data is retrieved from PubMed ® on a weekly schedule. For terms and conditions see the National Library of Medicine Terms and Conditions.
A premier bibliographic database that contains over 18 million references to journal articles in life sciences with a concentration on biomedicine. A distinctive feature is that the records are indexed with NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). PubMed provides free access to MEDLINE and links to full text articles when possible. The great majority of journals are selected for MEDLINE based on the recommendation of the Literature Selection Technical Review Committee (LSTRC), an NIH-chartered advisory committee of external experts analogous to the committees that review NIH grant applications. Some additional journals and newsletters are selected based on NLM-initiated reviews, e.g., history of medicine, health services research, AIDS, toxicology and environmental health, molecular biology, and complementary medicine, that are special priorities for NLM or other NIH components. These reviews generally also involve consultation with an array of NIH and outside experts or, in some cases, external organizations with which NLM has special collaborative arrangements. MEDLINE is the primary component of PubMed, part of the Entrez series of databases provided by the NLM National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). MEDLINE may also be searched via the NLM Gateway. Time coverage: generally 1946 to the present, with some older material. Source: Currently, citations from approximately 5,516 worldwide journals in 39 languages; 60 languages for older journals. Citations for MEDLINE are created by the NLM, international partners, and collaborating organizations.
View all literature mentionsGoogle Scholar provides a simple way to broadly search for scholarly literature. From one place, you can search across many disciplines and sources: articles, theses, books, abstracts and court opinions, from academic publishers, professional societies, online repositories, universities and other web sites. Google Scholar helps you find relevant work across the world of scholarly research. Features of Google Scholar * Search diverse sources from one convenient place * Find articles, theses, books, abstracts or court opinions * Locate the complete document through your library or on the web * Learn about key scholarly literature in any area of research How are documents ranked? Google Scholar aims to rank documents the way researchers do, weighing the full text of each document, where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature. * Publishers - Include your publications in Google Scholar * Librarians - Help patrons discover your library''s resources
View all literature mentionsContains data to inform healthcare decision-making from Cochrane and other systematic reviews, clinical trials, and more. Cochrane reviews bring you the combined results of the worlds best medical research studies, and are recognized as the gold standard in evidence-based health care. Consists of a regularly updated collection of evidence-based medicine databases, including The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. This database includes systematic reviews of healthcare interventions that are produced and disseminated by The Cochrane Collaboration. It is published on a monthly basis and made available both on CD-ROM and the Internet. The review abstracts are available to browse and search free of charge on this website. The Cochrane Library Users'' Group (CLUG) provides a forum for discussion of usability, readability, searchability, and formatting issues related to the use of The Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit and independent organization, dedicated to making up-to-date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare readily available worldwide. Funded by John Wiley and Sons Limited. The individual entities of The Cochrane Collaboration are funded by a large variety of governmental, institutional and private funding sources, and are bound by organisation-wide policy limiting uses of funds from corporate sponsors.
View all literature mentions