Anatomy of the collecting system of lower pole of the kidney in patients with a single renal stone: a comparative study with individuals with normal kidneys

• Main Authors: Zomorrodi Afshar, Buhluli Abulfazel, Fathi Samad
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2010-01-01
• Series: Saudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation
• Online Access: http://www.sjkdt.org/article.asp?issn=1319-2442;year=2010;volume=21;issue=4;spage=666;epage=672;aulast=Zomorrodi
• ISSN: 1319-2442

At least 5&#x0025; of women and 12&#x0025; of men during their lives will experience renal colic, at least once. Many theories have been suggested for the etiology of renal stones and va-riations in the anatomy of the collecting system have been suggested to have a role in stone formation. This study was conducted to examine the role of variation of lower pole collecting system in patients with lower pole kidney stone and compared the same in normal persons (kidney donors). Investigation for the anatomy of the lower pole of the kidney (angle between lower infundibulum and pelvis, length and diameter of the infundibulum and number and pattern distribution of calyces) was carried out using intravenous pyelogram (IVP) in 100 cases with urinary stone (study cases) and 400 persons with normal kidneys (control subjects). The study was a retrospective cross-sectional case control study. Results were analyzed by Mann-Whiteny and independent sample chi square tests. The mean infundibulum-pelvic angle (IPA) in control subjects and in patients was 112.5 &#177; 10.7 and 96.6 &#177; 28.8, respectively. There was significant correlation between reduced angle and stone formation (<i>P</i>= &lt; 0.001). The mean infundibulum-uretero-pelvic angle (IUPA) in control subjects and study cases was 53.5 &#177; 12.7 and 42.6 &#177; 13.4, respectively. There was significant correlation between decreased angle and stone formation (P= &lt; 0.001). The mean length of infundibulum of lower pole of kidney (IPIL) in controls and study patients was 22.5 &#177; 4.1 and 27.5 &#177; 7.7, respectively, which was statistically significant (P&lt; 0.001). The mean number of calyces in lower pole of the kidney (LPCN) in controls and study patients was 2.6 &#177; 0.6 and 3 &#177; 0.9, respectively, which was statistically significant (<i>P</i>= &lt; 0.002). There was no significant correlation between distribution of calyces and stone formation (<i>P</i>= 0.366). Our study suggests that abnormal renal anatomy was more common in patients with lower pole kidney stone and should be considered a risk factor for forming lower pole kidney stone.