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
Autor*in: |
Purkait, Bimalesh [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2017 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
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: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00240-017-0980-3 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR002725843 |
---|
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 |
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 |