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

References

• C.ChaussyE.SchmiedtD.JochamW.BrendelB.ForssmannV.WaltherFirst clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock wavesJ Urol1271982417420
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.M.PremingerH.G.TiseliusD.G.AssimosP.AlkenA.C.BuckM.Gallucietal2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculiEur Urol52200716101631
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H.G.TiseliusD.AckermannP.AlkenC.BuckP.ConortM.GallucciGuidelines on urolithiasisEur Urol402001362371
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.G.MarguetW.P.SpringhartB.K.AugeG.M.PremingerAdvances in the surgical management of nephrolithiasisMinerva Urol Nefrol5620043348
   Google Scholar
• Y.H.TanG.M.PremingerAdvances in video and imaging in ureteroscopyUrol Clin North Am3120043342
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.K.ChowD.E.PattersonM.L.BluteJ.W.SeguraUreteroscopy. Effect of technology and technique on clinical practiceJ Urol170200399102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.D.RamanM.S.PearleManagement options for lower pole renal calculiCurr Opin Urol182008214219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F.J.SampaioRenal anatomy. Endourologic considerationsUrol Clin North Am272000585607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.SrivastavaW.ZamanV.SinghA.MandhaniA.KumarU.SinghEfficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for solitary lower calyceal stone: a statistical modelBJU Int932004364368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.AlbanisH.M.AtherA.G.PapatsorisJ.MasoodD.StaiosT.SheikhetalInversion, hydration and diuresis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: does it improve the stone-free rate for lower pole stone clearance?Urol Int832009211216
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y.S.JuanS.M.ChuangW.J.WuJ.T.ShenC.J.WangC.H.HuangImpact of lower pole anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsyKaohsiung J Med Sci212005358364
   Google Scholar
• L.RuggeraP.BeltramiR.BallarioS.CavalleriL.CazzolettiW.ArtibaniImpact of anatomical pyelocaliceal topography in the treatment of renal lower calyces stones with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyInt J Urol122005525532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.M.ElbahnasyA.L.ShalhavD.M.HoenigO.M.ElashryD.S.SmithE.M.McDougalletalLower caliceal stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy. the impact of lower pole radiographic anatomyJ Urol1591998676682
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F.J.SampaioM.A.Pereira-SampaioL.A.FavoritoThe pig kidney as an endourologic model: anatomic contributionJ Endourol1219984550
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.SahinkanatH.EkerbicerB.OnalN.TansuS.ResimS.CitgezetalEvaluation of the effects of relationships between main spatial lower pole calyceal anatomic factors on the success of shock-wave lithotripsy in patients with lower pole kidney stonesUrology712008801805
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.OnalO.DemirkesenN.TansuM.KalkanR.AltintasV.YalcinThe impact of caliceal pelvic anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric lower pole stonesJ Urol172200410821086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.PareekS.P.HedicanF.T.LeeJrS.Y.NakadaShock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomographyUrology662005941944
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.KosarA.OzturkT.A.SerelS.AkkusO.S.UnalEffect of vibration massage therapy after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients with lower caliceal stonesJ Endourol131999705707
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.A.McAteerA.P.EvanJ.C.WilliamsJrJ.E.LingemanTreatment protocols to reduce renal injury during shock wave lithotripsyCurr Opin Urol192009192195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.R.MatlagaJ.A.McAteerB.A.ConnorsR.K.HandaA.P.EvanJ.C.WilliamsetalPotential for cavitation-mediated tissue damage in shockwave lithotripsyJ Endourol222008121126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.K.HandaM.R.BaileyM.PaunS.GaoB.A.ConnorsL.R.WillisetalPretreatment with low-energy shock waves induces renal vasoconstriction during standard shock wave lithotripsy (SWL): a treatment protocol known to reduce SWL-induced renal injuryBJU Int103200912701274
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.J.RassweilerT.KnollK.U.KohrmannJ.A.McAteerJ.E.LingemanR.O.ClevelandetalShock wave technology and application: an updateEur Urol592011784796
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.NovakTreatment of the lower pole nephrolithiasisCas Lek Cesk144Suppl. 220054547
   Google Scholar
• I.RiedlerH.TrummerP.HebelG.HubmerOutcome and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first-line therapy of lower pole nephrolithiasisUrol Int712003350354
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.ObekB.OnalK.KantayM.KalkanV.YalcinA.OneretalThe efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for isolated lower pole calculi compared with isolated middle and upper caliceal calculiJ Urol166200120812084
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.E.LingemanY.I.SiegelB.SteeleA.W.NyhuisJ.R.WoodsG.J.FuchsManagement of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysisJ Urol1511994663669
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.M.AlbalaD.G.AssimosR.V.ClaymanJ.D.DenstedtM.GrassoJ.Gutierrez-AcevesetalLower pole I. A prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial resultsJ Urol166200120722080
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.KnollS2 guidelines on diagnostic, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis. Part 1: diagnostic therapyUrologe A482009917924
   Google Scholar
• Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, SeitzC. Guidelines on urolithiasis. <http://www.uroweb.org/gls/pdf/20_Urolithiasis_LR%20March%2013%202012.pdf>. [accessed June 2012].
   Google Scholar
• G.Wendt-NordahlT.MutP.KrombachM.S.MichelT.KnollDo new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors?Urol Res39June2011185188
   Google Scholar
• T.KnollG.Wendt-NordahlL.TrojanA.WenkeN.RoederP.AlkenCurrent aspects of stone therapyAktuelle Urol3620054754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.T.GettmanJ.W.SeguraCurrent evaluation and management of renal and ureteral stonesSaudi Med J222001306314
   Google Scholar
• S.PierreG.M.PremingerHolmium laser for stone managementWorld J Urol252007235239
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.KourambasR.R.ByrneG.M.PremingerDoes a ureteral access sheath facilitate ureteroscopy?J Urol1652001789793
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.O.L’EsperanceW.O.EkeruoC.D.ScalesJrC.G.MarguetW.P.SpringhartM.E.MaloneyetalEffect of ureteral access sheath on stone-free rates in patients undergoing ureteroscopic management of renal calculiUrology662005252255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D.H.BagleyR.L.KuoI.S.ZeltserAn update on ureteroscopic instrumentation for the treatment of urolithiasisCurr Opin Urol14200499106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.Y.ChiuY.CaiR.MarcovichA.D.SmithB.R.LeeAre new-generation flexible ureteroscopes better than their predecessors?BJU Int932004115119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O.ShvartsK.T.PerryB.GoffP.G.SchulamImproved functional deflection with a dual-deflection flexible ureteroscopeJ Endourol182004141144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.J.TroyT.AnagnostouD.A.TolleyFlexible upper tract endoscopyBJU Int932004671679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.BinbayE.YurukT.AkmanF.OzgorM.SeyrekU.OzkuvancietalIs there a difference in outcomes between digital and fiberoptic flexible ureterorenoscopy procedures?J Endourol24201019291934
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.S.PearleJ.E.LingemanR.LeveilleeR.KuoG.M.PremingerR.B.NadleretalProspective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or lessJ Urol173200520052009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.KnollJ.P.JessenP.HoneckG.Wendt-NordahlFlexible ureterorenoscopy versus miniaturized PNL for solitary renal calculi of 10–30 mm sizeWorld J Urol292011755759
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.BredaO.OgunyemiJ.T.LeppertJ.S.LamP.G.SchulamFlexible ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy for single intrarenal stones 2 cm or greater – is this the new frontier?J Urol1792008981984
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E.S.HyamsR.MunverV.G.BirdJ.UberoiO.ShahFlexible ureterorenoscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for the management of renal stone burdens that measure 2–3 cm: a multi-institutional experienceJ Endourol24201015831588
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P.AlkenG.HutschenreiterR.GuntherM.MarbergerPercutaneous stone manipulationJ Urol1251981463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.de la RosetteD.AssimosM.DesaiJ.GutierrezJ.LingemanR.ScarpaetalThe clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patientsJ Endourol2520111117
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.KnollF.WezelM.S.MichelP.HoneckG.Wendt-NordahlDo patients benefit from miniaturized tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy? A comparative prospective studyJ Endourol24201010751079
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.NageleM.HorstmannK.D.SievertM.A.KuczykU.WalcherJ.HennenlotteretalA newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. an in vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic studyJ Endourol21200711131116
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.LahmeK.H.BichlerW.L.StrohmaierT.GotzMinimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stonesEur Urol402001619624
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M.MongaS.OglevieMinipercutaneous nephrolithotomyJ Endourol142000419421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.GiustiA.PiccinelliG.TavernaA.BenettiL.PasiniM.CorintietalMiniperc? No, thank you!Eur Urol512007810815
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.V.JackmanS.P.HedicanC.A.PetersS.G.DocimoPercutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new techniqueUrology521998697701
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.KnollK.HegerA.HaeckerM.OsmanP.AlkenK.U.KohrmannetalPercutaneous nephrolithotomy: experience from 348 proceduresEur Urol (Suppl)3200442
   Google Scholar
• S.LahmeV.ZimmermannsA.HochmuthP.LiskeStones of the upper urinary tract. Update on minimal-invasive endourological treatmentArch Ital Urol Androl8020081317
   Google Scholar
• U.NageleD.SchillingK.D.SievertA.StenzlM.KuczykManagement of lower-pole stones of 0.8–1.5 cm maximal diameter by the minimally invasive percutaneous approachJ Endourol22200818511853
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.N.ArgyropoulosD.A.TolleyOptimizing shock wave lithotripsy in the 21st centuryEur Urol522007344352
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.SrisubatS.PotisatB.LojanapiwatV.SetthawongM.LaopaiboonExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stonesCochrane Database Sys Rev2009CD007044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.ZanettiI.Kartalas-GoumasE.MontanariA.B.FedericiA.TrinchieriF.RoveraetalExtracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in patients treated with antithrombotic agentsJ Endourol152001237241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.M.PremingerManagement of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopyUrol Res342006108111
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• J.D.WattersonA.R.GirvanA.J.CookD.T.BeikoL.NottB.K.AugeetalSafety and efficacy of holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diathesesJ Urol1682002442445
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.DashT.G.SchusterB.K.HollenbeckG.J.FaerberJ.S.WolfJr.Ureteroscopic treatment of renal calculi in morbidly obese patients: a stone-matched comparisonUrology602002393397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.W.SeguraG.M.PremingerD.G.AssimosS.P.DretlerR.I.KahnJ.E.LingemannetalNephrolithiasis clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines PanelJ Urol151199416481651
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar