What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney

Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pe...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Purkait, Bimalesh [verfasserIn] Sinha, Rahul Janak Bansal, Ankur Sokhal, Ashok Kumar Singh, Kawaljit Singh, Vishwajeet

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2017

Schlagwörter:	Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Insignificant residual fragments Pediatric patients Stone regrowth

Anmerkung:	© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Übergeordnetes Werk:	Enthalten in: Urological research - Berlin : Springer, 1973, 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:46 ; year:2017 ; number:3 ; day:06 ; month:05 ; pages:285-290

Links:	Volltext

DOI / URN:	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3

Katalog-ID:	SPR002725843

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	SPR002725843
003	DE-627
005	20230519163845.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	201001s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)SPR002725843
035			\|a (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	1		\|a Purkait, Bimalesh \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
264		1	\|c 2017
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
500			\|a © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
520			\|a Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment.
650		4	\|a Percutaneous nephrolithotomy \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Insignificant residual fragments \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Pediatric patients \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
650		4	\|a Stone regrowth \|7 (dpeaa)DE-He213
700	1		\|a Sinha, Rahul Janak \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Bansal, Ankur \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Sokhal, Ashok Kumar \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Singh, Kawaljit \|4 aut
700	1		\|a Singh, Vishwajeet \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i Enthalten in \|t Urological research \|d Berlin : Springer, 1973 \|g 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 \|w (DE-627)254236901 \|w (DE-600)1461962-3 \|x 1434-0879 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:46 \|g year:2017 \|g number:3 \|g day:06 \|g month:05 \|g pages:285-290
856	4	0	\|u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 \|z lizenzpflichtig \|3 Volltext
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_SPRINGER
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_32
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_100
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_120
912			\|a GBV_ILN_138
912			\|a GBV_ILN_152
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_187
912			\|a GBV_ILN_224
912			\|a GBV_ILN_250
912			\|a GBV_ILN_267
912			\|a GBV_ILN_281
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2006
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2008
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2010
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2015
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2020
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2025
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2026
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2027
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2034
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2057
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2108
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2119
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2129
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 46 \|j 2017 \|e 3 \|b 06 \|c 05 \|h 285-290

Indexfelder

author_variant	b p bp r j s rj rjs a b ab a k s ak aks k s ks v s vs
matchkey_str	article:14340879:2017----::htshftoisgiiateiulrgetolwnpruaeunprltooyneitiptetwtaoa
hierarchy_sort_str	2017
publishDate	2017
allfields	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 doi (DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Purkait, Bimalesh verfasserin aut What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213 Sinha, Rahul Janak aut Bansal, Ankur aut Sokhal, Ashok Kumar aut Singh, Kawaljit aut Singh, Vishwajeet aut Enthalten in Urological research Berlin : Springer, 1973 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 (DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3 1434-0879 nnns volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129 AR 46 2017 3 06 05 285-290
spelling	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 doi (DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Purkait, Bimalesh verfasserin aut What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213 Sinha, Rahul Janak aut Bansal, Ankur aut Sokhal, Ashok Kumar aut Singh, Kawaljit aut Singh, Vishwajeet aut Enthalten in Urological research Berlin : Springer, 1973 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 (DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3 1434-0879 nnns volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129 AR 46 2017 3 06 05 285-290
allfields_unstemmed	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 doi (DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Purkait, Bimalesh verfasserin aut What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213 Sinha, Rahul Janak aut Bansal, Ankur aut Sokhal, Ashok Kumar aut Singh, Kawaljit aut Singh, Vishwajeet aut Enthalten in Urological research Berlin : Springer, 1973 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 (DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3 1434-0879 nnns volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129 AR 46 2017 3 06 05 285-290
allfieldsGer	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 doi (DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Purkait, Bimalesh verfasserin aut What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213 Sinha, Rahul Janak aut Bansal, Ankur aut Sokhal, Ashok Kumar aut Singh, Kawaljit aut Singh, Vishwajeet aut Enthalten in Urological research Berlin : Springer, 1973 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 (DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3 1434-0879 nnns volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129 AR 46 2017 3 06 05 285-290
allfieldsSound	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 doi (DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Purkait, Bimalesh verfasserin aut What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney 2017 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017 Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213 Sinha, Rahul Janak aut Bansal, Ankur aut Sokhal, Ashok Kumar aut Singh, Kawaljit aut Singh, Vishwajeet aut Enthalten in Urological research Berlin : Springer, 1973 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 (DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3 1434-0879 nnns volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129 AR 46 2017 3 06 05 285-290
language	English
source	Enthalten in Urological research 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290
sourceStr	Enthalten in Urological research 46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290 volume:46 year:2017 number:3 day:06 month:05 pages:285-290
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Percutaneous nephrolithotomy Insignificant residual fragments Pediatric patients Stone regrowth
isfreeaccess_bool	false
container_title	Urological research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Purkait, Bimalesh @@aut@@ Sinha, Rahul Janak @@aut@@ Bansal, Ankur @@aut@@ Sokhal, Ashok Kumar @@aut@@ Singh, Kawaljit @@aut@@ Singh, Vishwajeet @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2017-05-06T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	254236901
id	SPR002725843
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR002725843</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519163845.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR002725843</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purkait, Bimalesh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Percutaneous nephrolithotomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Insignificant residual fragments</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric patients</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stone regrowth</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sinha, Rahul Janak</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bansal, Ankur</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sokhal, Ashok Kumar</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Singh, Kawaljit</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Singh, Vishwajeet</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Urological research</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 1973</subfield><subfield code="g">46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)254236901</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1461962-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1434-0879</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:46</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:285-290</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">46</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">285-290</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Purkait, Bimalesh
spellingShingle	Purkait, Bimalesh misc Percutaneous nephrolithotomy misc Insignificant residual fragments misc Pediatric patients misc Stone regrowth What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
authorStr	Purkait, Bimalesh
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)254236901
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	springer
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	1434-0879
topic_title	What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (dpeaa)DE-He213 Insignificant residual fragments (dpeaa)DE-He213 Pediatric patients (dpeaa)DE-He213 Stone regrowth (dpeaa)DE-He213
topic	misc Percutaneous nephrolithotomy misc Insignificant residual fragments misc Pediatric patients misc Stone regrowth
topic_unstemmed	misc Percutaneous nephrolithotomy misc Insignificant residual fragments misc Pediatric patients misc Stone regrowth
topic_browse	misc Percutaneous nephrolithotomy misc Insignificant residual fragments misc Pediatric patients misc Stone regrowth
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Urological research
hierarchy_parent_id	254236901
hierarchy_top_title	Urological research
isfreeaccess_txt	false
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)254236901 (DE-600)1461962-3
title	What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
ctrlnum	(DE-627)SPR002725843 (SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e
title_full	What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
author_sort	Purkait, Bimalesh
journal	Urological research
journalStr	Urological research
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	false
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2017
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	285
author_browse	Purkait, Bimalesh Sinha, Rahul Janak Bansal, Ankur Sokhal, Ashok Kumar Singh, Kawaljit Singh, Vishwajeet
container_volume	46
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Purkait, Bimalesh
doi_str_mv	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3
title_sort	what is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? a comparison with normal kidney
title_auth	What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
abstract	Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
abstractGer	Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment. © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_32 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_120 GBV_ILN_138 GBV_ILN_152 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_187 GBV_ILN_224 GBV_ILN_250 GBV_ILN_267 GBV_ILN_281 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2006 GBV_ILN_2008 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2015 GBV_ILN_2020 GBV_ILN_2025 GBV_ILN_2026 GBV_ILN_2027 GBV_ILN_2034 GBV_ILN_2037 GBV_ILN_2057 GBV_ILN_2108 GBV_ILN_2110 GBV_ILN_2119 GBV_ILN_2129
container_issue	3
title_short	What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney
url	https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3
remote_bool	true
author2	Sinha, Rahul Janak Bansal, Ankur Sokhal, Ashok Kumar Singh, Kawaljit Singh, Vishwajeet
author2Str	Sinha, Rahul Janak Bansal, Ankur Sokhal, Ashok Kumar Singh, Kawaljit Singh, Vishwajeet
ppnlink	254236901
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	false
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3
up_date	2024-07-03T14:48:25.655Z
_version_	1803569705154248705
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR002725843</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519163845.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201001s2017 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR002725843</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00240-017-0980-3-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Purkait, Bimalesh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Pediatric population has increasing incidence of renal calculus and it is estimated to be around 50/10,000 population. The treatment of choice for large and complex stone in anomalous kidney is percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). The fate of insignificant residual fragment after PCNL in pediatric patients is not well documented. Here, we are reporting our long-term experience and follow-up of insignificant residual fragment in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney in comparison to normal kidney. Intuitional ethical approval was taken. A retrospective analysis of PCNL in pediatric (<18 years) anomalous kidney was performed from 2001 to 2013. The data of 52 pediatric patients with anomalous kidney (group B) have been compared to 251 normal kidneys (group A). The mean age of the patients was 7.83 + 3.45 (range 3–18) in group A and 8.21 ± 3.25 (range 5–18) in group B. The mean size of the insignificant residual fragment was 2.2 + 0.5 mm (1–4) in group A and 2.1 + 0.6 mm (range 1–4) in group B. Most of these residual fragments were single in number (72.55 vs. 67.30%, respectively). 54.98% children in group A and 67.30% in group B were symptomatic in the follow-up. Stone size was increased, stable and spontaneously passed in 49.8 vs. 71.15, 22.7 vs. 19.23 and 27.49 vs. 9.61% (p < 0.03), respectively, over mean follow-up of 50.34 months. Insignificant residual fragments in children are notorious for regrowth (49.8% in normal and 71.15% in anomalous kidney) in future. Most of the children will require symptomatic treatment (55.37 vs. 82.69%) or reintervention (39 vs. 46%) for insignificant residual fragment.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Percutaneous nephrolithotomy</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Insignificant residual fragments</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric patients</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Stone regrowth</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sinha, Rahul Janak</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Bansal, Ankur</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Sokhal, Ashok Kumar</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Singh, Kawaljit</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Singh, Vishwajeet</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Urological research</subfield><subfield code="d">Berlin : Springer, 1973</subfield><subfield code="g">46(2017), 3 vom: 06. Mai, Seite 285-290</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)254236901</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1461962-3</subfield><subfield code="x">1434-0879</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:46</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:05</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:285-290</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_32</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_138</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_152</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_187</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_224</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_250</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_267</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_281</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2006</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2008</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2015</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2025</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2026</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2034</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2057</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2108</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2119</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2129</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">46</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">05</subfield><subfield code="h">285-290</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3993196

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

What is the fate of insignificant residual fragment following percutaneous nephrolithotomy in pediatric patients with anomalous kidney? A comparison with normal kidney

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?