Resolution of Bacteriuria in Infectious Stone Patients: Comparison of Results Employing Newer Treatment Modalities

  • L. Paul Sonda
  • Stephen Wang
  • James Ellis
  • Pat Kielczewski
  • Sharon Fleenor


One hundred forty-five patients with a history consistent with infectious stones were treated by either percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PCNL), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), or a combined approach. The results in the small combined group compare favorably with those reported for anatrophic nephrolithotomy. When PCNL was compared with ESWL in patients without indwelling tubes or diversions, bacteriuria was resolved in a significantly higher percentage (86% to 56%, p < 0.5, chi-square test). Although controlled, prospective, randomized studies will be needed to confirm this result, our data suggest that PCNL is more effective in eradicating both stones and infection in this category of patients.


Shock Wave Lithotripsy Calcium Oxalate Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy Residual Stone Calcium Oxalate Stone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Vargas AD, Bragin SD, Mendez R: Staghorn calculus: its clinical presentation, complications and management. J Urol 127: 860, 1982.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shortliffe LMD, McNeal JE, Wehner N: Persistent urinary infections in a young woman with bilateral renal stones. J Urol 131: 1147, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler JE: Bacteriology of branched renal calculi and accompanying urinary tract infection. J Urol 131: 213, 1984.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lingeman JE, Coury TA, Newman DM, et al: Comparison of results and morbidity of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 138: 485, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    LeRoy AJ, Segura JW, Williams HJ, et al: Percutaneous renal calculus removal in an extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy practice. J Urol 138: 703, 1987.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jocham D, Chaussy CH, Schmiedt E: Five-year experience with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the Munich stone center. III World Congress on Endourology. New York, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lingeman JE, Newman DM, Mertz JHO, et al: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: the Methodist Hospital of Indiana experience. J Urol 135: 1134, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kahnoski RJ, Lingeman JE, Coury TA, et al: Combined percutaneous and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for staghorn calculi: an alternative to anatrophic nephrolithotomy. J Urol 135: 679, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schulze H, Hertle L, Graff J, et al: Combined treatment of branched calculi by percutaneous nephrolithotomy and extracorporeal shcok wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1138, 1986.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boyce WH: Surgery of urinary calculi in perspective. Urol Clin N Am 10: 585, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Resnick MI: Evaluation and management of infection stones. Urol Clin N Am 8: 265, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Drach GW, Dretler SP, Fair WR, et al: Report of the United States cooperative study of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 135: 1138, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koff SA and Lapides JL: Altered bladder function in staghorn calculus disease. J Urol 117: 577, 1977.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Paul Sonda
    • 1
  • Stephen Wang
    • 1
  • James Ellis
    • 1
  • Pat Kielczewski
    • 1
  • Sharon Fleenor
    • 1
  1. 1.School of MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations