• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Imaging modalities and treatment of paediatric upper tract urolithiasis: A systematic review and update on behalf of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines panel

N. Grivas, K. Thomas, T. Drake, J. Donaldson, A. Neisius, A. Petřík, Y. Ruhayel, C. Seitz, C. Türk, A. Skolarikos

. 2020 ; 16 (5) : 612-624. [pub] 20200704

Jazyk angličtina Země Velká Británie

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, systematický přehled

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc21020066

BACKGROUND: Prompt diagnosis and treatment of paediatric urolithiasis are required to avoid long term sequelae of renal damage. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic imaging modalities and treatment approaches for paediatric urolithiasis. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1980-January 2019. 76 full-text articles were included. RESULTS: Ultrasound and Kidney-Ureter-Bladder radiography are the baseline diagnostic examinations. Non-contrast Computed Tomography (CT) is the second line choice with high sensitivity (97-100%) and specificity (96-100%). Magnetic Resonance Urography accounts only for 2% of pediatric stone imaging studies. Expectant management for single, asymptomatic lower pole renal stones is an acceptable initial approach, especially in patients with non-struvite, non-cystine stones<7 mm. Limited studies exist on medical expulsive therapy as off-label treatment. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment with overall stone free rates (SFRs) of 70-90%, retreatment rates 4-50% and complication rates up to 15%. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy is effective with SFRs of 81-98%, re-treatment rates of 6.3-10% and complication rates of 1.9-23%. Flexible ureteroscopy has shown SFRs of 76-100%, retreatment rates of 0-19% and complication rates of 0-28%. SFRs after first and second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) are 70.1-97.3% and 84.6-97.5%, respectively with an overall complication rate of 20%. Open surgery is seldom used, while laparoscopy is effective for stones refractory to SWL and PNL. Limited data exist for robot-assisted management. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial assessment of paediatric urolithiasis, US is recommended as first imaging modality, while non-contrast CT is the second option. SWL is recommended as first line treatment for renal stones <20 mm and for ureteral stones<10 mm. Ureteroscopy is a feasible alternative both for ureteral stones not amenable to SWL as well as for renal stones <20 mm (using flexible). PNL is recommended for renal stones >20 mm.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc21020066
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20210830101656.0
007      
ta
008      
210728s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.07.003 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)32739360
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxk
100    1_
$a Grivas, Nikolaos $u Department of Urology, G.Hatzikosta General Hospital, Ioannina, Greece; Department of Urology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: nikolaosgrivas@hotmail.com
245    10
$a Imaging modalities and treatment of paediatric upper tract urolithiasis: A systematic review and update on behalf of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines panel / $c N. Grivas, K. Thomas, T. Drake, J. Donaldson, A. Neisius, A. Petřík, Y. Ruhayel, C. Seitz, C. Türk, A. Skolarikos
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Prompt diagnosis and treatment of paediatric urolithiasis are required to avoid long term sequelae of renal damage. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic imaging modalities and treatment approaches for paediatric urolithiasis. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1980-January 2019. 76 full-text articles were included. RESULTS: Ultrasound and Kidney-Ureter-Bladder radiography are the baseline diagnostic examinations. Non-contrast Computed Tomography (CT) is the second line choice with high sensitivity (97-100%) and specificity (96-100%). Magnetic Resonance Urography accounts only for 2% of pediatric stone imaging studies. Expectant management for single, asymptomatic lower pole renal stones is an acceptable initial approach, especially in patients with non-struvite, non-cystine stones<7 mm. Limited studies exist on medical expulsive therapy as off-label treatment. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment with overall stone free rates (SFRs) of 70-90%, retreatment rates 4-50% and complication rates up to 15%. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy is effective with SFRs of 81-98%, re-treatment rates of 6.3-10% and complication rates of 1.9-23%. Flexible ureteroscopy has shown SFRs of 76-100%, retreatment rates of 0-19% and complication rates of 0-28%. SFRs after first and second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) are 70.1-97.3% and 84.6-97.5%, respectively with an overall complication rate of 20%. Open surgery is seldom used, while laparoscopy is effective for stones refractory to SWL and PNL. Limited data exist for robot-assisted management. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial assessment of paediatric urolithiasis, US is recommended as first imaging modality, while non-contrast CT is the second option. SWL is recommended as first line treatment for renal stones <20 mm and for ureteral stones<10 mm. Ureteroscopy is a feasible alternative both for ureteral stones not amenable to SWL as well as for renal stones <20 mm (using flexible). PNL is recommended for renal stones >20 mm.
650    _2
$a dítě $7 D002648
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a ledvinové kameny $x terapie $7 D007669
650    12
$a litotripse $7 D008096
650    _2
$a směrnice pro lékařskou praxi jako téma $7 D017410
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    12
$a kameny v močovodu $x terapie $7 D014514
650    _2
$a ureteroskopie $7 D018666
650    12
$a urolitiáza $x diagnostické zobrazování $x terapie $7 D052878
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
700    1_
$a Thomas, Kay $u Department of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, The Stone Unit, London, UK
700    1_
$a Drake, Tamsin $u Department of Urology, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK
700    1_
$a Donaldson, James $u Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK
700    1_
$a Neisius, Andreas $u Department of Urology, Hospital of the Brothers of Mercy Trier, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Trier, Germany
700    1_
$a Petřík, Aleš $u Department of Urology, Region Hospital, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic; Dept. of Urology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Ruhayel, Yasir $u Department of Urology, Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden
700    1_
$a Seitz, Christian $u Department of Urology, Vienna General Hospital, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Türk, Christian $u Department of Urology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Vienna, Austria; Urologische Praxis Mit Steinzentrum, Vienna, Austria
700    1_
$a Skolarikos, Andreas $u Second Department of Urology, Sismanoglio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
773    0_
$w MED00166989 $t Journal of pediatric urology $x 1873-4898 $g Roč. 16, č. 5 (2020), s. 612-624
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32739360 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20210728 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20210830101656 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1690788 $s 1140512
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2020 $b 16 $c 5 $d 612-624 $e 20200704 $i 1873-4898 $m Journal of pediatric urology $n J Pediatr Urol $x MED00166989
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20210728

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace