Download PDF
Notfall Medizin 2003; 29(12): 506-511
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-815703
Praxis

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Interventionelle Therapie von Harnsteinen - Indikationen, Erfolgsraten und Komplikationen

T. Knoll1 , L. Trojan1 , A. Haecker1 , M. S. Michel1 , K. U. Köhrmann1 , P. Alken1
  • 1Urologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 January 2004 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Bis vor etwa 30 Jahren war die offene Operation die häufigste Therapieform für Harnsteine, heute spielt sie dagegen kaum noch eine Rolle bei der Steinbehandlung. Einen maßgeblichen Anteil an dieser Entwicklung hat die 1980 erstmals klinisch eingesetzte extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL), welche heute eine führende Rolle in der Harnsteinbehandlung eingenommen hat. Daneben wurden endoskopische Verfahren wie Ureterorenoskopie (URS) und perkutane Nephrolitholapaxie (PCNL) weiterentwickelt, die eine optimale, minimalinvasive Ergänzung zur ESWL darstellen. Dieser Artikel gibt eine Übersicht über den heutige Stand der interventionellen Harnsteintherapie und diskutiert die Indikationen, Erfolgsraten und Komplikationen der jeweiligen Verfahren.

Summary

Open surgery was the standard therapy for urinary calculi up to about 30 years ago. This changed upon introduction of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in 1980, a procedure that is now the primary therapy for 70 % of the patients in western countries. Simultaneously, endourological procedures like ureterorenoscopy (URS) and percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL) have been improved, and now, modern small diameter and highly efficient instruments offer an ideal alternative to shockwave lithotripsy. Today, minimally-invasive stone treatment has replaced open stone surgery almost completely. This article introduces ESWL, URS and PCNL and discusses indications, outcomes and limitations.

Literatur

  • 1 Chaussy C, Schmeidt E, Jochman D. et al. . First clinical experience with extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves.  J Urol. 1982;  131 417
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Newman D, Coury T, Lingeman J. et al. . Extracorporal Shockwave lithotripsy experience in children.  J Urol. 1986;  136 238
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Guidelines European Association of Urology.  2001; 
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Ehreth JT, Drach GW, Arnett ML. et al. . Extracorporal shockwave lithotripsy: Multicenter study of kidney and upper ureter versus middle and lower ureter treatments.  J Urol. 1994;  152 1379
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Smith AD. Smiths Textbook of Endourology.  St. Louis, MO, USA: Quality Medical Publishing Inc. 1996; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, de VJW Kort. et al. . Efficiacy of second generation lithotriptors: A multicenter comparative study of 2,206 extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy treatments with the Siemens Lithostar, Dornier HM 4, Wolf Piezolith 2300, Direx Tripter X-1 and Breakstone Lithotriptors.  J Urol. 1992;  148 1052
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rassweiler J, Henkel T, Köhrmann K. Lithotripter technology: Present and future.  J Endourol. 1992;  6 1
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Parr NJ, Pye SD, Ritchie AWS, Tolley DA. Mechanisms responsible for diminished fragmentation of ureteral calculi: An experimental and clinical study.  J Urol. 1992;  148 1079
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mobley TB, Myers DA, Jenkins JM. et al. . Effects of stents on lithotripsy of ureteral calculi: treatment results with 18,825 calculi using the Lithostar lithotriptor.  J Urol. 1994;  152 53-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Danuser H, Ackermann DK, Marth DC. et al. . Extracorporal shock wave lithotripsy in situ or after push-up for upper ureteral calculi: A prospective randomized trial.  J Urol. 1993;  150 824-826
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Erturk E, Herrman E, Cockett AT. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for distal ureteral stones.  J Urol. 1993;  149 1425
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kapoor DA, Leech JE, Yap WT. et al. . Cost and efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy in the treatment of lower ureteral calculi.  J Urol. 1992;  148 1095
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM. et al. . Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.  J Urol. 1987;  138 485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ramsay JWA, Crosker RP, Ball AJ. et al. . Urothelial reaction to ureteric intubation.  Br J Urol. 1987;  60 504
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Müller J. Extrakorporale Stoßwellen Lithotripsie: Monozentrische Ergebnisse nach Ultraschall- und Röntgenortung am Universitätsklinikum Mannheim.  Medizinische Dissertation. 2002; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Segura JH, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ. et al. . Percutaneous removal of kidney stones.  Review of 1000 cases. J Urol. 1985;  134 1077
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Turk TM, Jenkins AD. A comparison of ureteroscopy to in situ extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi.  J Urol. 1999;  161 45-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Preminger GM. Technique versus technology: What is the most approbriate method for the removal of ureteral calculi?.  J Urol. 1991;  146 5-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Bierkens AF, Hendrikx AJM, de la Rosette JJ. et al. . Treatment of mid- and lower ureteric calculi: extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy vs laser ureteroscopy. A comparison of costs, morbidity and effectiveness.  Br J Urol. 1998;  81 31-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hosking DH, Bard RJ. Ureteroscopy with intravenous sedation for treatment of distal ureteral calculi: a safe and effective alternative for shock wave lithotripsy.  J Urol. 1996;  156 899-902
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Harmon WJ, Sershon PD, Blute ML. et al. . Ureteroscopy: current practice and long-term complications.  J Urol. 1997;  157 28-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Elashry OM, Elbahnasy AM, Rao GS. Flexible ureteroscopy: Washington University expermience with the 9.3 F and 7.5 F flexible ureteroscopes.  J Urol. 1997;  157 2074-2080
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Segura JW. Ureteroscopy for lower ureteral stones.  Urology. 1993;  42 356-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Michel MS, Knoll T, Ptashynk T. et al. . Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of lower pole calyx stones: influence of different lithotripsy probes and stone extraction tools on scope deflection and irrigation flow.  Eur Urol. 2002;  41 312-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 El EA Gabry, Bagley DH. Retrieval capabilities of different stone basket designs in vitro.  J Endourol. 1999;  13 305-307
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gould DL. Retrograde flexible ureteroscopic holmium-YAG laser lithotripsy: the new gold standard.  Tech Urol. 1998;  4 22-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ptashnyk T, Cueva-Martinez A, Michel MS. et al. . Comparative investigations on the retrieval capabilities of various baskets and graspers in four ex vivo models.  Eur Urol. 2002;  41 406-410
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Teichman JM, Rao RD, Rogenes VJ, Harris JM. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy.  J Urol. 1997;  158 1358-1361
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Segura JW, Preminger GM, Assimos DG. et al. . Ureteral stones clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi.  J Urol. 1997;  158 1915-1921
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tawfiek ER, Bagley DH. Management of upper urinary tract calculi with ureteroscopic techniques.  Urology. 1999;  53 23-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jackman SV, Hedican SP, Peters CA. et al. . Percutaneous nephrolithotomy in infants and preschool age children: experience with a new technique.  Urology. 1998;  52 697-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Lingeman JE, Siegel YI, Steele B. et al. . Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis.  J Urol. 1994;  151 663-667
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Khan RI. Percutaneous approach for ureteral stones.  Prob Urol. 1993;  7 547-555
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Netto NR Jr, Claro JF, Lemos GC, Cortado PL. Renal calculi in lower pole calices: what is the best method of treatment?.  J Urol. 1991;  146 721-723
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lenz W. Die perkutane Nephrolitholapaxie: Monozentrische Ergebnisse am Universitätsklinikum Mannheim.  Medizinische Dissertation. 1999; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Anschrift für die Verfasser

Dr. med. Thomas Knoll

Urologische Universitätsklinik Mannheim

Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3

68135 Mannheim

Fax: 0621/383-4001

Email: thomas.knoll@uro.ma.uni-heidelberg.de

      >