Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2019; 50(02): 157-165
DOI: 10.1055/a-0828-9936
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Rückblick auf 50 Jahre Steintherapie

Looking back on 50 years of stone treatment
Thomas Knoll
1   Klinikum Sindelfingen-Böblingen, Urologische Klinik Sindelfingen, Sindelfingen
,
Peter Alken
2   Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Klinik für Urologie, Mannheim
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 February 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Die Urolithiasis ist das Brot-und-Butter-Geschäft des Urologen. Kaum eine urologische Praxis oder Klinik kann auf die Therapie von Harnsteinen verzichten. Dieser Artikel stellt die Entwicklungen der letzten 50 Jahre auf dem Gebiet der Urolithiasis dar. In der bildgebenden Diagnostik hat sich die Computertomografie gegenüber der konventionellen Röntgenbildgebung durchgesetzt. Konservative Therapien wie die „medical expulsive therapy“ (MET) hatten sich etabliert, sind aber zuletzt wieder in die Diskussion geraten. Die größten Fortschritte hat in den letzten 50 Jahren sicherlich die interventionelle Therapie gezeigt. War in den 70er-Jahren noch die offene Steinchirurgie der Therapiestandard, so hat sich diese bis heute vollständig zu Minimal-Invasivität gewandelt. Die Entwicklung der perkutanen Nephrolithotomie (PCNL), dann der extrakorporalen Stoßwellenlithotripsie (ESWL) und schließlich der Ureterrenoskopie (URS) ermöglichen heute individualisierte Therapiekonzepte, wobei die URS sicherlich das am häufigsten eingesetzte Verfahren ist. Wünschenswert sind die gleichen Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Steinmetabolik und -prävention, wo die diagnostischen Verfahren und Therapieempfehlungen keine wirkliche Entwicklung gezeigt haben.

Abstract

Urolithiasis is an urologist’s daily business. This article provides an overview of the developments in the management of urinary stone disease since the 1970s. While conventional KUB X-rays and intravenous pyelography were standard imaging procedures in the past, computed tomography is the first choice today. Conservative treatments such as medical expulsive therapy were established to facilitate ureteral stone passage, but have come into discussion in the past few years. Fifty years ago, open stone surgery was the standard procedure to access renal stones. This has been superseded by minimally-invasive procedures ranging from percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) to extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), which is today’s standard for most upper urinary tract stones. It would have been desirable if such enormous efforts and progress had been made in the evaluation of stone pathogenesis and the improvement of preventative measures. Unfortunately, the knowledge on stone formation has hardly improved compared to 1970.

Schlüsselwörter

Harnsteine - Steinchirurgie - ESWL - URS - PCNL

Keywords

urinary calculi - open stone surgery - URS - ESWL - PCNL
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Taguchi Y. Management of urinary calculi: update. Can Med A J 1970; 102: 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Marquardt H, Nagel R. [Results of the therapy of ureteral calculi using the Zeiss sling (a review of 12 years)]. Z Urol Nephrol 1973; 66: 329-335
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rutner AB. Ureteral balloon dilatation and stone basketing. Urology 1984; 23: 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Smith MJ, Boyce WH. Anatrophic nephrotomy and plastic calyrhaphy. J Urol 1968; 99: 521-527
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wickham JE, Hanley HG, Joekes AM. Regional renal hypothermia. Br J Urol 1967; 39: 727-743
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alken P, Thuroff J, Riedmiller H. et al. Doppler sonography and B-mode ultrasound scanning in renal stone surgery. Urology 1984; 23: 455-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gil-Vernet J. New surgical concepts in removing renal calculi. Urol Int 1965; 20: 255-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Preminger GM, Assimos DG, Lingeman JE. et al. Chapter 1: AUA guideline on management of staghorn calculi: diagnosis and treatment recommendations. J Urol 2005; 173: 1991-2000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Streem SB, Yost A, Mascha E. Clinical implications of clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. JUrol 1996; 155: 1186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Faaborg D, Alsyouf M, Li R. et al. Comparing uric acid stone attenuation in low-dose and conventional noncontrast computerized tomography. Journal of Endourology 2014; 28: A149
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tanaka M, Yokota E, Toyonaga Y. et al. Stone attenuation value and cross-sectional area on computed tomography predict the success of shock wave lithotripsy. Korean J Urol. 2013; 54: 454-459
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Villa L, Giusti G, Knoll T. et al. Imaging for Urinary Stones: Update in 2015. Eur Urol Focus 2016; 2: 122-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K. et al. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 468-474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Knoll T, Bach T, Humke U. et al. [S2k guidelines on diagnostics, therapy and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF 043/025) : Compendium]. Urologe A 2016; 55: 904-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jepperson MA, Ibrahim ESH, Taylor A. et al. Accuracy and efficiency of determining urinary calculi composition using dual-energy computed tomography compared with hounsfield unit measurements for practicing physicians. Urology 2014; 84: 561-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ritter M, Rassweiler MC, Hacker A. et al. Laser-guided percutaneous kidney access with the Uro Dyna-CT: first experience of three-dimensional puncture planning with an ex vivo model. World J Urol 2012; DOI: 10.1007/s00345-012-0847-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Patel SR, Nakada SY. The modern history and evolution of percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2015; 29: 153-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alken P, Hutschenreiter G, Gunther R. et al. Percutaneous stone manipulation. J Urol 1981; 125: 463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Alken P. Percutaneous ultrasonic destruction of renal calculi. Urol Clin North Am 1982; 9: 145-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Alken P. The telescope dilator. World Journal of Urology 1985; 3: 7-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK. Worldwide Trends of Urinary Stone Disease Treatment Over the Last Two Decades: A Systematic Review. Journal of Endourology 2017; 31: 547-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Harmouch S, Leow JJ, Meyer CP. et al. Contemporary trends in utilization and outcomes of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the United States from 2003 to 2014. Canadian Urological Association Journal 2017; 11 (Suppl. 06) S339-S340
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Segura JW, Patterson DE, LeRoy AJ. et al. Percutaneous lithotripsy. J Urol 1983; 130: 1051-1054
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Rusnak B, Castaneda-Zuniga W, Kotula F. et al. An improved dilator system for percutaneous nephrostomies. Radiology 1982; 144: 174
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lahme S, Bichler KH, Strohmaier WL. et al. Minimally invasive PCNL in patients with renal pelvic and calyceal stones. EurUrol 2001; 40: 619
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Jackman SV, Docimo SG, Cadeddu JA. et al. The “mini-perc” technique: a less invasive alternative to percutaneous nephrolithotomy. World J Urol 1998; 16: 371-374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nagele U, Horstmann M, Sievert KD. et al. A newly designed amplatz sheath decreases intrapelvic irrigation pressure during mini-percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy: an in-vitro pressure-measurement and microscopic study. J Endourol 2007; 21: 1113-1116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Desai J, Solanki R. Ultra-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (UMP): one more armamentarium. BJU Int 2013; 112: 1046-1049
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bader MJ, Gratzke C, Seitz M. et al. The “All-Seeing Needle”: Initial Results of an Optical Puncture System Confirming Access in Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 1054-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S. et al. Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol 2017; 72: 220-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ibarluzea G, Scoffone CM, Cracco CM. et al. Supine Valdivia and modified lithotomy position for simultaneous anterograde and retrograde endourological access. BJU Int 2007; 100: 233-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Scoffone CM, Cracco CM, Cossu M. et al. Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery in Galdakao-modified supine Valdivia position: a new standard for percutaneous nephrolithotomy?. European Urology 2008; 54: 1393-1403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Khan F, Borin JF, Pearle MS. et al. Endoscopically guided percutaneous renal access: “seeing is believing”. J Endourol 2006; 20: 451-455 ; discussion 455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chaussy C, Brendel W, Schmiedt E. Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves. Lancet 1980; 2: 1265-1268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Rassweiler JJ, Knoll T, Kohrmann KU. et al. Shock wave technology and application: an update. Eur Urol 2011; 59: 784-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gerber R, Studer UE, Danuser H. Is newer always better? A comparative study of 3 lithotriptor generations. The Journal of urology 2005; 173: 2013-2016
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Neucks JS, Pishchalnikov YA, Zancanaro AJ. et al. Improved acoustic coupling for shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res 2008; 36: 61-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Perez-Castro Ellendt E, Martinez-Pineiro JA. [Transurethral ureteroscopy. A current urological procedure]. Arch Esp Urol 1980; 33: 445-460
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Razvi HA, Denstedt JD, Chun SS. et al. Intracorporeal lithotripsy with the holmium:YAG laser. The Journal of urology 1996; 156: 912-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Hofbauer J, Hobarth K, Marberger M. Electrohydraulic versus pneumatic disintegration in the treatment of ureteral stones: a randomized, prospective trial. The Journal of urology 1995; 153: 623-625
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Michel MS, Kohrmann KU, Alken P. Update on contact lithotripsy. CurrOpinUrol 2000; 10: 571
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Kronenberg P, Traxer O. Update on lasers in urology 2014: current assessment on holmium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Ho:YAG) laser lithotripter settings and laser fibers. World J Urol 2015; 33: 463-469
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Fried NM, Irby PB. Advances in laser technology and fibre-optic delivery systems in lithotripsy. Nat Rev Urol 2018; 15: 563-573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R. et al. Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology 2000; 56: 935
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P. et al. Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors?. Urol Res 2010; DOI: 10.1007/s00240-010-0331-0.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Binbay M, Yuruk E, Akman T. et al. Is There a Difference in Outcomes Between Digital and Fiberoptic Flexible Ureterorenoscopy Procedures?. J Endourol 2010; DOI: 10.1089/end.2010.0211.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bach C, Nesar S, Kumar P. et al. The new digital flexible ureteroscopes: „Size Does Matter“ - Increased ureteric access sheath use!. Urol Int. 2012; 89: 408-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Martin C, Tyson M, Humphreys M. The durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes in an academic setting with multiple surgeons. Journal of Urology 2016; 1: e447-e448
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Ziemba JB, Matlaga BR. Understanding the costs of flexible ureteroscopy. Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2016; 68: 586-591
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Martin CJ, Nunez-Nateras R, Humphreys MR. Durability of digital flexible ureteroscopes in an academic setting with multiple surgeons. Journal of the American College of Surgeons ; Conference: 101st Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons. Chicago, IL, United States. Conference Publication: (var.pagings). (104 SUPPL. 101) 2015; 221: S173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Knudsen B, Miyaoka R, Shah K. et al. Durability of the next-generation flexible fiberoptic ureteroscopes: a randomized prospective multi-institutional clinical trial. Urology 2010; 75: 534-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Davis NF, Quinlan MR, Browne C. et al. Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review. World Journal of Urology 2017; 24: 24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Marchini GS, Batagello CA, Monga M. et al. In Vitro Evaluation of Single-Use Digital Flexible Ureteroscopes: A Practical Comparison for a Patient-Centered Approach. J Endourol 2018; 32: 184-191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Seitz C, Liatsikos E, Porpiglia F. et al. Medical Therapy to Facilitate the Passage of Stones: What Is the Evidence?. European Urology 2009; 56: 455-471
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Pickard R, Starr K, MacLennan G. et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 2015; 386: 341-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Ye Z, Zeng G, Yang H. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Distal Ureteral Stones with Renal Colic: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial. Eur Urol 2017; DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.10.033.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Meltzer AC, Burrows PK, Wolfson AB. et al. Effect of Tamsulosin on Passage of Symptomatic Ureteral Stones: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 1051-1057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D. et al. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. EurUrol 2003; 44: 709
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Raheem OA, Khandwala YS, Sur RL. et al. Burden of Urolithiasis: Trends in Prevalence, Treatments, and Costs. European Urology Focus 2017; 3: 18-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Strohmaier WL. [Economic aspects of evidence-based metaphylaxis]. Urologe A 2006; 45: 1406-1409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Khan SR, Pearle MS, Robertson WG. et al. Kidney stones. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2: 16008
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Besiroglu H, Otunctemur A, Ozbek E. The metabolic syndrome and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Renal Failure 2015; 37: 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. et al. Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol 2015; 67: 750-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Hsi RS, Stoller ML. Complete Metabolic Evaluation is Indicated after a First Stone Event: Con. J Urol 2017; 197: 545-547
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Hsi RS, Sanford T, Goldfarb DS. et al. The Role of the 24-Hour Urine Collection in the Prevention of Kidney Stone Recurrence. J Urol 2017; 197: 1084-1089
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Kim SC, Coe FL, Tinmouth WW. et al. Stone formation is proportional to papillary surface coverage by Randallʼs plaque. J Urol 2005; 173: 117-119 ; discussion 119
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Evan AP, Lingeman JE, Coe FL. et al. Randallʼs plaque of patients with nephrolithiasis begins in basement membranes of thin loops of Henle. J Clin Invest 2003; 111: 607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar