[Current aspects of stone therapy]

The Risk Factors for Radiolucent Nephrolithiasis among Workers in High-Temperature Workplaces in the Steel Industry

Workers in high-temperature workplaces with inadequate water supply may exhibit symptoms of chronic dehydration and have increased risk of nephrolithiasis. The aim of this study was to investigate the risk of radiolucent stone formation among workers in a high-temperature workplace and the related risk factors associated with the condition. We collected data from 1681 workers in a steel factory in Southern Taiwan who underwent regular health examinations. Radiolucent stones were defined as positive findings on ultrasound with negative radiographic images. The prevalences of nephrolithiasis and radiolucent stones in this study were 12.0% and 5.1%, respectively. Heat exposure and age were two major risk factors influencing the probability of radiolucent stones. We combined the age and heat exposure into four groups (over and under 35 years of age with and without heat exposure) in a logistic regression. For workers younger than 35 years, the odds ratio of radiolucent stones was 2.695 (95% confidence interval: 1.201-6.049) in workers with heat exposure compared to workers without. Our investigation further demonstrated that heat exposure was a main risk factor for radiolucent stone formation. In conclusion, our identification of heat exposure as an independent factor for radiolucent stone development in steel workers highlights the need for attention to be paid to those working in similar environments.

Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy vs. percutaneous nephrolithotomy vs. flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower-pole stones

Objectives

To review previous reports and discuss current trends in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS). ESWL was recommended as the first-line treatment for small and intermediate-sized stones in the lower pole, while it is the standard treatment for large stones. However, the stone clearance rate after ESWL seems to be lower than that of stones in other locations. This seems to result from a lower rate of fragment passage, due to anatomical factors.

Methods

Reports on urinary stone disease were reviewed, assessing only publications in peer-reviewed, Medline-listed journals in the English language (publication years 1990–2011).

Results

Recent experience with flexible URS (fURS) for intrarenal stones showed that excellent stone-free rates can be achieved. With increasing experience and technically improved equipment, fURS has become an alternative to ESWL for small and intermediate-sized renal stones. Furthermore, several authors reported successful retrograde treatment for large renal stones, proposing fURS as an alternative to PCNL. However, the major drawbacks are long operating times and commonly, staged procedures, which is why PCNL remains the method of choice for such stones.

Conclusions

Considering the currents trends and evidence, the 2012 update of the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis has upgraded the endourological treatment of kidney stones. Individual factors such as body habitus, renal anatomy, costs and patient preference must be considered.

[Controversy on lower pole stones: monitor or intervene?]

For many years, the treatment options of lower pole stones have been discussed controversially: Watchful waiting, shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous litholapaxy. Small lower pole stones <1 cm can be monitored actively. Shock waves can disintegrate the stones and are recommended for stones <1 cm. However, the stone-free rate is limited because of the particular anatomy of the lower pole. Modern flexible ureterorenoscopes can nowadays reach even anatomically unfavourable lower calyxes. For stones <1 cm good stone-free results can be achieved. For larger stones >2 cm percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the standard treatment modality.

[Urolithiasis in children--rational diagnosis, therapy, and metaphylaxis]

With a proportion of 1-5%, children constitute only a small number of all patients with urolithiasis. Nevertheless, pediatric stone disease is an important health care problem because of the high recurrence rate and the threat of progredient renal function impairment with consecutive loss of quality of life. Modern therapies, especially extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), have caused a revolution in the operative treatment spectrum. Open surgery is required for stone removal only rarely, such as for the simultaneous repair of urinary tract anomalies. The minimally invasive modalities of modern stone therapy - mainly ESWL as the treatment of first choice - have led to widespread disregard of stone metaphylaxis. The important principle that says an urinary stone is just a symptom and not the cause of the disease is often forgotten. So it must be noted that despite the high standard of care in Germany, not all problems regarding urinary stone disease are being resolved, particularly in childhood. This article presents the current knowledge of the most important aspects of stone therapy and the methods of treatment in children.

Management of stones in patients with anomalously sited kidneys

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Congenital abnormities in urology are very common. Horseshoe, malrotated and ectopic kidneys, as well as duplex systems, are the most frequent in this respect. The combination of both abnormalities and stones is of clinical importance. The question is asked if standard procedures for stones apply also to stones in abnormal kidneys.

RECENT FINDINGS

In general, open surgery, extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy, percutaneous procedures, endoscopic procedures and laparoscopy are possible procedures in both normal and abnormal kidneys. The importance of ureteric pelvic junction obstruction has to be taken into account and a metabolic work-up remains important.

SUMMARY

The trend for treatment of stones in abnormal kidneys goes towards endoscopical and laparoscopical procedures, whereas a combination of both seems to be appropriate in many cases.

N/A

N/A