Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2005; 36(1): 47-54
DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-830192
Übersichtsarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Aktuelle Aspekte der Steintherapie

Current Aspects of Stone TherapyT.  Knoll1 , G.  Wendt-Nordahl1 , L.  Trojan1 , A.  Wenke2 , N.  Roeder2 , P.  Alken1
  • 1Urologische Klinik, Universitätsklinikum Mannheim
  • 2DRG-Research Group, Universitätsklinikum Münster
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 February 2005 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Mehr als 30 % aller stationären Aufnahmen in einer urologischen Klinik erfolgen zur Behandlung von Harnsteinen. Die Therapie erfolgt heute in fast allen Fällen minimalinvasiv durch extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL), Ureterorenoskopie (URS) oder perkutane Nephrolithotomie (PCNL). Technische Weiterentwicklungen in der Endourologie und gewachsene Erfahrung mit der ESWL haben in den letzten Jahren zu einem Rückgang der ESWL-Behandlungen und einem häufigeren Einsatz endoskopischer Techniken geführt. Diese sind zwar im Vergleich zur ESWL invasiver, führen jedoch in den meisten Fällen zu einer rascheren Steinfreiheit. Durch die Einführung des Fallpauschalensystems (DRGs) wird auch die ökonomische Seite der Steintherapie immer wichtiger werden. Steinprävention führt zu einer Kostenreduktion im Gesundheitswesen, weshalb eine geeignete Steinmetaphylaxe durchgeführt werden sollte. Die vorliegende Übersichtsarbeit stellt daher die aktuellen Therapieempfehlungen der interventionellen Harnsteintherapie und Steinmetaphylaxe dar und zeigt Möglichkeiten auf, eine sowohl medizinisch als auch ökonomisch rationale Therapie durchzuführen.

Abstract

More than 30 % of all admissions to an urologic clinic are for the treatment of urinary stones. In almost all cases, the treatment is minimally invasive employing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureterorenoscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Technical advances in endourology and a growing expertise in ESWL led to a decline in ESWL and an increase in endoscopic techniques. In comparison with ESWL, the endoscopic techniques are more invasive but in most cases achieve a stone free state faster. With the introduction of diagnosis related groups (DRG), the economic aspect of stone therapy is gaining in importance. Stone prevention leads to a cost reduction in the health care system, justifying the use of an appropriate stone metaphylaxis. This review article presents the current recommendations for interventional urinary stone therapy and lists the options of conducting both medical and economically rational therapy.

Schlüsselwörter

Harnsteine - extrakorporale Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL) - Ureterorenoskopie (URS) - perkutane Nephrolithotomie (PCNL) - Fallpauschalensystem (DRG) - Kostenreduktion

Key words

Urinary stones - extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) - ureterorenoscopy (URS) - percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) - diagnosis related groups (DRG) - cost reduction

Literatur

  • 1 Tiselius H G, Ackermann D, Alken P, Buck C, Conort P, Gallucci M. Guidelines on urolithiasis.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 (4) 362-371
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Tiselius H G. Possibilities for preventing recurrent calcium stone formation: principles for the metabolic evaluation of patients with calcium stone disease.  BJU Int. 2001;  88 (2) 158-168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Brandle E, Hautmann R, Alken P, Hesse A, Schafer R, Richter-Reichhelm M. et al . Metaphylaxis of urinary calculi.  Urologe A. 1997;  36 (6) 588-593
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rochell B, Roeder N. DRG: the new hospital reimbursement system for Germany. Part 1: Introduction.  Urologe A. 2003;  42 (4) 471-484
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Knoll T, Michel M S, Kohrmann K U, Alken P. Urologic interventional therapy of kidney calculi (I)-extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.  Ther Umsch. 2003;  60 (2) 98-102
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Brandle E, Hautmann R, Alken P, Hesse A, Schafer R, Richter-Reichhelm M. et al . Techniques for interventional and operative therapy of calculi.  Urologe A. 1997;  36 (6) 585-587
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Brandle E, Hautmann R, Alken P, Hesse A, Schafer R, Richter-Reichhelm M. et al . Indication for therapy in urinary calculi.  Urologe A. 1997;  36 (6) 582-584
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Lingeman J E, Kim S C, Kuo R L, McAteer J A, Evan A P. Shockwave lithotripsy: anecdotes and insights.  J Endourol. 2003;  17 (9) 687-693
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Evan A P, Willis L R, Lingeman J E, McAteer J A. Renal trauma and the risk of long-term complications in shock wave lithotripsy.  Nephron. 1998;  78 (1) 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Lingeman J E, Woods J, Toth P D, Evan A P, McAteer J A. The role of lithotripsy and its side effects.  J Urol. 1989;  141 (3 Pt 2) 793-797
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Chan S L, Stothers L, Rowley A, Perler Z, Taylor W, Sullivan L D. A prospective trial comparing the efficacy and complications of the modified Dornier HM3 and MFL 5000 lithotriptors for solitary renal calculi.  J Urol. 1995;  153 (6) 1794-1797
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kohrmann K U, Rassweiler J J, Manning M, Mohr G, Henkel T O, Junemann K P. et al . The clinical introduction of a third generation lithotriptor: Modulith SL 20.  J Urol. 1995;  153 (5) 1379-1383
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Haecker A, Hatzinger M, Knoll T, Leistner R, Wendt-Nordahl G, Michel M S, Marlinghaus E, Alken P, Koehrmann K U. Ex-vivo evaluation of renal injury of a new electromagnetic shockwave generation with user selectable dual focus size data.  J Urol. 2004;  171 1874
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Segura J W, Preminger G M, Assimos D G, Dretler S P, Kahn R I, Lingeman J E. et al . Ureteral Stones Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of ureteral calculi. The American Urological Association.  J Urol. 1997;  158 (5) 1915-1921
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Muslumanoglu A Y, Tefekli A, Sarilar O, Binbay M, Altunrende F, Ozkuvanci U. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy as first line treatment alternative for urinary tract stones in children: a large scale retrospective analysis.  J Urol. 2003;  170 (6 Pt 1) 2405-2408
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Landau E H, Gofrit O N, Shapiro A, Meretyk S, Katz G, Shenfeld O Z. et al . Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is highly effective for ureteral calculi in children.  J Urol. 2001;  165 (6 Pt 2) 2316-2319
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Knoll T, Michel M S, Alken P. Interventional treatment of urinary calculi.  Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2003;  128 (27) 1485-1488
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Anagnostou T, Tolley D. Management of ureteric stones.  Eur Urol. 2004;  45 (6) 714-721
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Bagley D H, Kuo R L, Zeltser I S. An update on ureteroscopic instrumentation for the treatment of urolithiasis.  Curr Opin Urol. 2004;  14 (2) 99-106
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Elashry O M, Elbahnasy A M, Rao G S, Nakada S Y, Clayman R V. Flexible ureteroscopy: Washington University experience with the 9.3F and 7.5F flexible ureteroscopes.  J Urol. 1997;  157 (6) 2074-2080
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Menezes P, Dickinson A, Timoney A G. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for the treatment of refractory upper urinary tract stones.  BJU Int. 1999;  84 (3) 257-260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Troy A J, Anagnostou T, Tolley D A. Flexible upper tract endoscopy.  BJU Int. 2004;  93 (5) 671-679
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Chiu K Y, Cai Y, Marcovich R, Smith A D, Lee B R. Are new-generation flexible ureteroscopes better than their predecessors?.  BJU Int. 2004;  93 (1) 115-119
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Shvarts O, Perry K T, Goff B, Schulam P G. Improved functional deflection with a dual-deflection flexible ureteroscope.  J Endourol. 2004;  18 (2) 141-144
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Collins J W, Keeley Jr F X, Timoney A. Cost analysis of flexible ureterorenoscopy.  BJU Int. 2004;  93 (7) 1023-1026
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Delvecchio F C, Preminger G M. Endoscopic management of urologic disease with the holmium laser.  Curr Opin Urol. 2000;  10 (3) 233-237
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Grasso M, Chalik Y. Principles and applications of laser lithotripsy: experience with the holmium laser lithotrite.  J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1998;  16 (1) 3-7
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Sofer M, Watterson J D, Wollin T A, Nott L, Razvi H, Denstedt J D. Holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for upper urinary tract calculi in 598 patients.  J Urol. 2002;  167 (1) 31-34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Teichman J M, Vassar G J, Glickman R D. Holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lithotripsy efficiency varies with stone composition.  Urology. 1998;  52 (3) 392-397
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Teichman J M, Rao R D, Rogenes V J, Harris J M. Ureteroscopic management of ureteral calculi: electrohydraulic versus holmium:YAG lithotripsy.  J Urol. 1997;  158 (4) 1357-1361
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Michel M S, Knoll T, Ptaschnyk T, Kohrmann K U, Alken P. 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 (3) 312-316
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Cybulski P A, Joo H, Honey R J. Ureteroscopy: anesthetic considerations.  Urol Clin North Am. 2004;  31 (1) 43-47
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Jeong H, Kwak C, Lee S E. Ureteric stenting after ureteroscopy for ureteric stones: a prospective randomized study assessing symptoms and complications.  BJU Int. 2004;  93 (7) 1032-1034
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Srivastava A, Gupta R, Kumar A, Kapoor R, Mandhani A. Routine stenting after ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi is unnecessary: results of a randomized controlled trial.  J Endourol. 2003;  17 (10) 871-874
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Lifshitz D A, Lingeman J E. Ureteroscopy as a first-line intervention for ureteral calculi in pregnancy.  J Endourol. 2002;  16 (1) 19-22
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Dogan H S, Tekgul S, Akdogan B, Keskin M S, Sahin A. Use of the holmium:YAG laser for ureterolithotripsy in children.  BJU Int. 2004;  94 (1) 131-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Satar N, Zeren S, Bayazit Y, Aridogan I A, Soyupak B, Tansug Z. Rigid ureteroscopy for the treatment of ureteral calculi in children.  J Urol. 2004;  172 (1) 298-300
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Andreoni C, Afane J, Olweny E, Clayman R V. Flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: first-line therapy for proximal ureteral and renal calculi in the morbidly obese and superobese patient.  J Endourol. 2001;  15 (5) 493-498
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Albala D M, Assimos D G, Clayman R V, Denstedt J D, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J. et al . Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results.  J Urol. 2001;  166 (6) 2072-2080
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Lingeman J E, Siegel Y I, Steele B, Nyhuis A W, Woods J R. Management of lower pole nephrolithiasis: a critical analysis.  J Urol. 1994;  151 (3) 663-667
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Kim S C, Kuo R L, Lingeman J E. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update.  Curr Opin Urol. 2003;  13 (3) 235-241
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Lahme S, Bichler K H, Strohmaier W L, Gotz T. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones.  Eur Urol. 2001;  40 (6) 619-624
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Desai M R, Kukreja R A, Desai M M, Mhaskar S S, Wani K A, Patel S H. et al . A prospective randomized comparison of type of nephrostomy drainage following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: large bore versus small bore versus tubeless.  J Urol. 2004;  172 (2) 565-577
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Raj G V, Auge B K, Weizer A Z, Denstedt J D, Watterson J D, Beiko D T. et al . Percutaneous management of calculi within horseshoe kidneys.  J Urol. 2003;  170 (1) 48-51
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Francesca F, Felipetto R, Mosca F, Boggi U, Rizzo G, Puccini R. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy of transplanted kidney.  J Endourol. 2002;  16 (4) 225-227
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Martin X, Murat F J, Feitosa L C, Rouviere O, Lyonnet D, Gelet A. et al . Severe bleeding after nephrolithotomy: results of hyperselective embolization.  Eur Urol. 2000;  37 (2) 136-139
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Knoll T, Michel M S, Kohrmann K U, Alken P. Urologic interventional therapy of kidney calculi (II)-Endoscopic methods: ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy.  Ther Umsch. 2003;  60 (2) 103-107
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Knoll T, Heger K, Haecker A, Osman M, Alken P, Kohrmann K U. et al . Percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Experience from 348 procedures.  Eur Urol. 2004;  3 42
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Zegel H G, Pollack H M, Banner M C, Goldberg B B, Arger P H, Mulhern C. et al . Percutaneous nephrostomy: comparison of sonographic and fluoroscopic guidance.  AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;  137 (5) 925-927
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Skrepetis K, Doumas K, Siafakas I, Lykourinas M. Laparoscopic versus open ureterolithotomy. A comparative study.  Eur Urol.. 2001;  40 (1) 32-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Keeley F X, Gialas I, Pillai M, Chrisofos M, Tolley D A. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy: the Edinburgh experience.  BJU Int. 1999;  84 (7) 765-769
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Segura J W, Preminger G M, Assimos D G, Dretler S P, Kahn R I, Lingeman J E. et al . Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel summary report on the management of staghorn calculi. The American Urological Association Nephrolithiasis Clinical Guidelines Panel.  J Urol. 1994;  151 (6) 1648-1651
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Murray M J, Chandhoke P S, Berman C J, Sankey N E. Outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy monotherapy for large renal calculi: effect of stone and collecting system surface areas and cost-effectiveness of treatment.  J Endourol. 1995;  9 (1) 9-13
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Zhong P, Preminger G M. Mechanisms of differing stone fragility in extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy.  J Endourol. 1994;  8 (4) 263-268
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Gupta N P, Singh D V, Hemal A K, Mandal S. Infundibulopelvic anatomy and clearance of inferior caliceal calculi with shock wave lithotripsy.  J Urol. 2000;  163 (1) 24-27
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Keeley Jr F X, Moussa S A, Smith G, Tolley D A. Clearance of lower-pole stones following shock wave lithotripsy: effect of the infundibulopelvic angle.  Eur Urol. 1999;  36 (5) 371-375
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Elbahnasy A M, Clayman R V, Shalhav A L, Hoenig D M, Chandhoke P, Lingeman J E. et al . Lower-pole caliceal stone clearance after shockwave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and flexible ureteroscopy: impact of radiographic spatial anatomy.  J Endourol. 1998;  12 (2) 113-119
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Knoll T, Musial A, Trojan L, Ptashnyk T, Michel M S, Alken P. et al . Measurement of renal anatomy for prediction of lower-pole caliceal stone clearance: reproducibility of different parameters.  J Endourol. 2003;  17 (7) 447-451
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 59 Madbouly K, Sheir K Z, Elsobky E. Impact of lower pole renal anatomy on stone clearance after shock wave lithotripsy: fact or fiction?.  J Urol. 2001;  165 (5) 1415-1418
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 60 Hollenbeck B K, Schuster T G, Faerber G J, Wolf J S. Flexible ureteroscopy in conjunction with in situ lithotripsy for lower pole calculi.  Urology. 2001;  58 (6) 859-863
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 61 Pace K T, Weir M J, Tariq N, Honey R J. Low success rate of repeat shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones after failed initial treatment.  J Urol. 2000;  164 (6) 1905-1907
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 62 Wu C F, Shee J J, Lin W Y, Lin C L, Chen C S. Comparison between extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and semirigid ureterorenoscope with holmium:YAG laser lithotripsy for treating large proximal ureteral stones.  J Urol. 2004;  172 (5 Pt 1) 1899-1902
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 63 Peschel R, Janetschek G, Bartsch G. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy for distal ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized study.  J Urol. 1999;  162 (6) 1909-1912
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 64 Pearle M S, Nadler R, Bercowsky E, Chen C, Dunn M, Figenshau R S. et al . Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for management of distal ureteral calculi.  J Urol. 2001;  166 (4) 1255-1260
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 65 Buchholz N P, Meier-Padel S, Rutishauser G. Minor residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy: spontaneous clearance or risk factor for recurrent stone formation?.  J Endourol. 1997;  11 (4) 227-232
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 66 Strohmaier W L. Socioeconomic aspects of urinary calculi and metaphylaxis of urinary calculi.  Urologe A. 2000;  39 (2) 166-170
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 67 Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann K U, Alken P. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000.  Eur Urol. 2003;  44 (6) 709-713
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 68 Caramia G, Di Gregorio L, Tarantino M L, Galuffo A, Iacolino R, Caramia M. Uric acid, phosphate and oxalate stones: treatment and prophylaxis.  Urol Int.. 2004;  72 Suppl 1 24-28
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 69 Chandhoke P S. When is medical prophylaxis cost-effective for recurrent calcium stones?.  J Urol. 2002;  168 (3) 937-940
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 70 Hesse A, Siener R, Heynck H, Jahnen A. The influence of dietary factors on the risk of urinary stone formation.  Scanning Microsc. 1993;  7 (3) 1119-1127
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 71 Klocke K, Hesse A, Vahlensieck W, Schneeberger W. Prevention of recurrent stone formation: long time results under treatment based on an extended metabolic investigation.  Urol Res. 1992;  20 (1) 94-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 72 Lotan Y, Cadeddu J A, Roerhborn C G, Pak C Y, Pearle M S. Cost-effectiveness of medical management strategies for nephrolithiasis.  J Urol. 2004;  172 (6 Pt 1) 2275-2281
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 73 Heimbach D, Jacobs D, Muller S C, Hesse A. Influence of alkaline solutions on chemolitholysis and lithotripsy of uric acid stones. An in vitro study.  Eur Urol. 2000;  38 (5) 621-626
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Dr. Thomas Knoll

Urologische Universitätsklinik · Klinikum Mannheim

Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1 - 3

68135 Mannheim

Phone: 0621/383-3349

Fax: 0621/383-734080

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