Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders (ASGIS)(ISSN: 2582-1091)

Review Article Volume 4 Issue 12

Urolithiasis in Children: Etiopathogenesis of Kidney Stone Disease and Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy

SP Yatzik1,2and AA Gusev1,3*

1Research Institute of Pediatric Surgery of Federal State Autonomous Institution “National Medical Research Center for Children's Health” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Russia
2Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Russia
3RUDN University (Peoples Friendship University of Russia); Moscow, Russia

*Corresponding Author: AA Gusev, Research Institute of Pediatric Surgery of Federal State Autonomous Institution “National Medical Research Center for Children's Health” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Russia.

Received: October 13, 2021; Published: November 11, 2021

Abstract

The fact that urolithiasis becomes more common among infants is frustrating [1]. Bilateral process is observed in 15-30% of patients according to the literature. Kidney stone disease (KSD, also known as urolithiasis) is a pretty tricky disease, apart from its high incidence it has a tendency to recurrence. Such patients usually have severe course of disease, development of serious complications, that in turn can lead to chronic renal failure (CRF).

Nowadays laparoscopy and retroperitoneoscopy are rarely used for removal of calculi from kidneys and ureters. Such combined methods as percutaneous lithocenosis with ureterorenoscopy (endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS)) are used more often. This procedure involves less postoperative complications, reduces hospital stay and recovery time, improves cosmetic results and would not disgrace the traditional surgery in functional results, if compared with open surgery methods for calculi extraction [2]. The number of open surgeries has significantly reduced, it can be used as the last method when all other minimally invasive procedures have no positive effect.

Both transurethral and percutaneous endoscopic lithotripsy should not be opposed to extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) because these methods complement each other in 18-27% of cases. Whereas endoscopic surgeries allow not only to remove the calculus, but also to eliminate simultaneously the cause of lithogenesis (internal urethrotomy, ureterocele dissection, ligature removal, etc.) [3].

The extracorporeal lithotripsy is currently the least invasive method of calculus removal. Such factors as calculus density and composition would be important in choosing the treatment method.

Keywords: Kidney Stone Disease; Chronic Renal Failure; Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy; Etiopathogenetic Principles; Calculus Removal

References

  1. Dwyer ME., et al. “Temporal trends in incidence of kidney stones among children: a 25-year population-based study”. The Journal of Urology 188 (2012): 247.
  2. Borofsky M and Lingeman J. “The role of open and laparoscopic stone surgery in the modern era of endourology”. Nature Reviews Urology 12 (2015): 392-400.
  3. Tolley DA and Esposito MP. “Laparoscopic and renal sparing approaches to tumours of the ureter and kidney”. Surgical Oncology 1-2 (2002): 47-54.
  4. Tekgul S., et al. “Guidelines on pediatric urology in EAU guidelines”. Edn. presented at the 32nd EAU Annual Congress, London. EAU Guidelines Office Arnhem, The Netherlands (2017).
  5. Skuginna V., et al. “Does stepwise voltage ramping protect the kidney from injury during extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy? Results of a prospective randomized trial”. European Urology 69 (2016): 267-273.
  6. Stolzmann P., et al. “Dual-energy computed tomography for the differentiation of uric acid stones: ex vivo performance evaluation”. Urological Research 36 (2008): 133-138.
  7. Papizh SB and Dlin VV. “Nephrocalcinosis in children”. Rossijskij Vestnik Perinatologii and a Pediatrician 1 (2010): 70-77.
  8. Saenko BC. Metaphylaxis of urolithiasis: Dis. Doctor of Medical Sciences 6 (2018): 131-138.
  9. Turgut M., et al. “The concentration of Zn, Mg and Mn in calcium oxalate monohydrate stones appears to interfere with their fragility in ESWL therapy”. Urological Research 36 (2008): 31-38.
  10. Siener R. “Can the manipulation of urinary pH by beverages assist with the prevention of stone recurrence?” Urolithiasis1 (2016): 51-56.
  11. Kirejczyk JK., et al. “An association between kidney stone composition and urinary metabolic disturbances in children”. The Journal of Pediatric Urology1 (2014): 130-135.
  12. Zu’bi F., et al. “Stone growth patterns and risk for surgery among children presenting with hypercalciuria, hypocitraturia, and cystinuria as underlying metabolic causes of urolithiasis”. The Journal of Pediatric Urology4 (2017): 1-7.
  13. Ferraro PM., et al. “Soda and other beverages and the risk of kidney stones”. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 8 (2013): 1389-1395.
  14. Rahman F., et al. “Effect of citrus-based products on urine profile: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. F1000 Research 6 (2017): 220.
  15. Sheir KZ., et al. “Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by noncontrast spiral computerized tomography”. Urological Research 33 (2005): 99-104.
  16. Williams JСJr., et al. “High resolution detection of internal structure of renal calculi by helical computerized tomography”. The Journal of Urology 167 (2002): 322-326.
  17. Cakiroglu B., et al. “Are Hounsfield densities of ureteral stones a predictive factor for effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?” International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine 7 (2014): 1276-1283.
  18. Madaan S and Joyce AD. “Limitations of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy”. Current Opinion in Urology 17 (2007): 109-113.
  19. Yoshida S., et al. “Role of volume and attenuation value histogram of urinary stone on noncontrast helical computed tomography as predictor of fragility by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy”. Urology 1 (2006): S33-S37.
  20. Alsagheer G., et al. “Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) monotherapy in children: predictors of successful outcome”. The Journal of Pediatric Urology 13 (2017): 515.
  21. Assimos D., et al. “Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, part II”. The Journal of Urology 4 (2016): 1161-1169.
  22. Picozzi SC., et al. “Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients”. Urological Research 40 (2012): 725-731.
  23. Turna B., et al. “Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in infants less than 12-month-old”. Urolithiasis 44 (2016): 435-440.
  24. Uguz S., et al. “Immediate or delayed SWL in ureteric stones: a prospective and randomized study”. Urological Research 40 (2012): 739-744.
  25. Gupta NP., et al. “Role of computed tomography with no contrast medium enhancement in predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for urinary calculi”. BJU International 95 (2005) 1285-1288.
  26. Ferrandino MN., et al. “Dual-energy computed tomography with advanced post image acquisition data processing: improved determination of urinary stone composition”. Journal of Endourology 24 (2010): 347-354.
  27. Lu P., et al. “The clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatric urolithiasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Urolithiasis 43 (2015): 199-206.
  28. Dretler SP and Spencer BA. “CT and stone fragility”. Journal of Endourology 15 (2001): 31-36.
  29. Ng СF., et al. “Development of a scoring system from noncontrast computerized tomography measurements to improve the selection of upper ureteral stone for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy”. Journal of Urology 181 (2009): 1151-1157.
  30. El-Assmy A., et al. “Kidney stone size and hounsfield units predict successful shockwave lithotripsy in children”. Urology4 (2013): 880-884.
  31. Kurien A., et al. “Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in children: equivalent clearance rates to adults is achieved with fewer and lower energy shock waves”. BJU International 103 (2009): 81-84.
  32. Tuncer M., et al. “Does extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy cause hearing impairment in children?” The Journal of Urology 193 (2015): 970-974.
  33. Akopyan AV., et al. “New possibilities of ultrasonic control of disintegration of kidney stones during remote lithotripsy in children”. Pediatric surgery 20 (2016): 17-19.
  34. Wen CC and Nakada SY. “Treatment selection and outcomes: renal calculi”. Urologic Clinics of North America 34 (2007): 409-419.
  35. EAU Guidelines. Edition. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam (2020).
  36. Datta SN., et al. “Prospective outcomes of ultra mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A consecutive cohort study”. The Journal of Urology 195 (2016): 741-746.
  37. Shokeir AA., et al. “Treatment of renal stones in children: a comparison between percutaneous nephrolithotomy and shock wave lithotripsy”. The Journal of Urology2 (2006): 706-710.
  38. Zeng G., et al. “Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP): A new concept in technique and instrumentation”. BJU International 117 (2016): 655-661.
  39. Cui Y., et al. “Comparison of ESWL and ureteroscopic holmium laser lithotripsy in management of ureteral stones”. PLoS One 9 (2014): e87634.
  40. Khalil M. “Management of impacted proximal ureteral stone: extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium: YAG laser lithotripsy”. Urology Annals 5 (2013): 88-92.
  41. AZ Vinarov., et al. “Some modern aspects of surgical treatment of urolithiasis. Mosk”. Surgical Journal 3 (2008): 65-69.
  42. Ishii H., et al. “Ureteroscopy for stone disease in the paediatric population: a systematic review”. BJU International 115 (2015): 867.
  43. Manzoor S., et al. “Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) vs. ureterorenoscopic (URS) manipulation in proximal ureteric stone”. Journal of College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 23 (2013): 726-730.
  44. Natarajan V., et al. “Comparison of patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes between ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy for proximal ureteral stones. USICON”. Indian The Journal of Urology (2014): S64.
  45. Wang HH., et al. “Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy: variation in surgical management of kidney stones at freestanding children's hospitals”. The Journal of Urology 187 (2012): 1402.
  46. MacLennan S., et al. “What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy (URS) compared with shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of upper ureteral stones in children and adults?” York, UK: University of York; (2015): 772-786.
  47. AG Martov., et al. “Holmium contact lithotripsy in the transurethral treatment of upper urinary tract stones”. Urology 5 (2008): 24-28.
  48. BK Komyakov., et al. “Retroperitoneoscopic ureterolithotomy”. Endoscopic surgery6 (2009): 32-35.

Citation

Citation: SP Yatzik and AA Gusev. “Urolithiasis in Children: Etiopathogenesis of Kidney Stone Disease and Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy". Acta Scientific Gastrointestinal Disorders 4.12 (2021): 02-12.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 SP Yatzik and AA Gusev. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.




Metrics

Acceptance rate35%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor0.835

Indexed In




News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is January 15, 2022.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US