|
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, Vol. 47, Issue 1, 2001 pp. 60-61 Letter to the Editor Management of Nephrolithiasis in Crossed Renal Ectopia Nabi G, Kasana I,
Khan M
Department of Surgery, Govt. Medical College, Srinagar,
Kashmir, J&K, India. Code Number: jp01020 Abstract A 40-year-old male
presented with vague lower abdominal pain of six months duration associated
with recurrent dysuria. Urine microscopy showed 20-40 red cells and 30-40 pus
cells per high power field. Urine culture showed E-coli. An X-ray of kidney,
ureter and bladder area showed multiple radio opaque shadows lying in right
lumbar region and over iliac bone area. Ultrasonsgraphy showed absence of left
kidney and hydronephrotic right kidney with multiple renal stones in right renal
fossa. An intravenous urogram showed crossed renal ectopia with multiple calculi
and normal functioning upper moiety and poorly functioning lower moiety. He
was taken up for cystoscopy and bilateral retrograde pyelography with drainage
film and open pyelolithotomy. Cystoscopy showed normal capacity bladder with
normally positioned ureteric orifices. A retrograde ureteropyelogram delineated
normal calipe ureters. There was drainage of dye into bladder from both the
moieties as seen under image intensifier. Kidneys were exposed by long lumbar
incision and extended pyelolithotomy in upper moiety was carried out. Lower
moiety required pyelotomy with two nephrotomies to clear the stones. Double
J stents were left in both the moieties for 6 weeks. There were no intraoperative
or postoperative complications. A check x-ray on second postoperative day showed
complete clearance. Patient was asymptomatic without urinary tract infection
at a follow up of 6 months.
The incidence of
crossed renal ectopia varies between 1 in 1000 clinically to 1 in 2000 in autopsy
series. (1,2) The variation in incidence is possibly due to the type of fusion.
The various fusions have been described with unilateral fused kidney and inferior
ectopia being the most common. The left to right cross over occurs more frequently.
In majority of the
cases this condition is discovered incidentally at autopsy, or ultrasonographic
screening for unrelated condition or following bone scanning. If manifestations
do occur, it presents as abdominal pain and urinary tract infections. The anomalous
position of kidneys and anomalous blood supply causing obstruction to the drainage
has been held responsible for such presentation. The incidence of urinary tract
infection is controversial. (3)
It has been presumed
that these kidneys are prone to nephrolithiasis with potentially obstructive
collecting systems. However, review of literature shows only 6 cases of stone
disease treated in crossed renal ectopic kidneys. The anomalous position of
kidneys and abnormal disposition of arterial supply pose a different surgical
challenge, requiring a careful definition of renal outlines by nephrotomogram
(4) or contrast enhanced computerised scans, mapping of vasculature by arteriography
(5) and collecting system with drainage pattern by cystoscopy and bilateral
ureteropyelography. When contemplating anatrophic pyelolithotomy or nephrectomy
in a fused ectopic kidney, pattern of vasculature is important. In cases of
simple pyelolithotomy it is probably not required.
The various modalities
of treatment that have been used in the management of such cases start with
minimal invasive therapy to open surgery. The choice of treatment depends on
the size of stone, pelvicalyceal anatomy, presence or absence of obstruction
and the experience of the surgeon. Open surgery is most commonly used in staghorn
and multiple calculi, as was carried out in our case.
References
© Copyright 2001 - Journal of Postgraduate Medicine |
|