title: Renal calculi with retrocaval ureter: is percutaneous nephrolithotomy sufficient?
abstract: A 60-year-old woman presented with complaints of intermittent right flank pain which had begun one year ago. Ultrasonography and intravenous urogram showed right pelvic (15 mm) and inferior calyceal (6 mm) calculi along with suspected retrocaval course of right ureter, which was confirmed by contrast CT scan. Tc-99m diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid (DTPA) scan showed normal function and normal drainage of right kidney. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) was performed for right renal calculi. Because of curved ureteric course, negotiation of ureteric catheter in pelvis was anticipated to be troublesome, so intraoperative retrograde pyelogram (RGP) was performed to delineate the anatomy. Puncture was performed safely after air contrast pyelography. No complications occurred intraoperatively and postoperatively. On follow-up of up to 1 year patient was asymptomatic and renal scan showed normal function and drainage. So in the presence of retrocaval ureter and associated renal calculi, PCNL is a safe and optimal procedure and in condition of non-obstructive drainage, management of calculi only is adequate.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, King George Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India. drjpswami@gmail.com
authors.forename: Jai
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Prakash
authors.forename: Anubhav
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Raj
authors.forename: Satyanarayan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Sankhwar
authors.forename: Vishwajeet
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Singh
mesh_terms: D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007669:Kidney Calculi / Q000150:complications* / Q000601:surgery*; D008875:Middle Aged; D009403:Nephrostomy, Percutaneous; D014513:Ureter / Q000002:abnormalities*; D014682:Vena Cava, Inferior
references.citation: J Pak Med Assoc. 2006 Jan;56(1):38-9
references.pmid: 16454134
references.citation: Int Urol Nephrol. 2002;33(1):19-22
references.pmid: 12090330
references.citation: J Urol. 1951 Feb;65(2):212-22
references.pmid: 14804783
references.citation: J Urol. 1999 Sep;162(3 Pt 1):692-5
references.pmid: 10458344
references.citation: Clin Radiol. 1969 Apr;20(2):173-7
references.pmid: 5771632
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Mar;150(3):591-4
references.pmid: 3257616
references.citation: J Endourol. 2003 Apr;17(3):155-60
references.pmid: 12803987
references.citation: JAMA. 1988 Aug 19;260(7):977-81
references.pmid: 3294456
references.citation: J Urol. 1959 Dec;82:630-2
references.pmid: 13818112
references.citation: J Urol. 1999 Oct;162(4):1373-4
references.pmid: 10492202
references.citation: Int Urol Nephrol. 1994;26(3):263-8
references.pmid: 7960536
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1950 Jun 22;242(25):963-8
references.pmid: 15423688
references.citation: Malays J Med Sci. 2011 Oct;18(4):84-7
references.pmid: 22589677
references.citation: J Endourol. 1999 Dec;13(10):721-2
references.pmid: 10646677
references.citation: Br J Urol. 1976 Jun;48(3):183-92
references.pmid: 779921
references.citation: Radiology. 1975 Jul;116(1):69-71
references.pmid: 1138286
references.citation: J Urol. 1971 Apr;105(4):497-501
references.pmid: 5556693
references.citation: Int J Urol. 1999 Aug;6(8):419-22
references.pmid: 10466455
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2166-9; discussion 2169
references.pmid: 16697829
references.citation: J Urol. 1991 May;145(5):1047-8
references.pmid: 2016790
references.citation: Eur Urol. 1990;18(3):207-10
references.pmid: 2261934
references.citation: J Med Soc N J. 1956 Feb;53(2):74-7
references.pmid: 13286686
references.citation: Urol J. 2011 Summer;8(3):231-5
references.pmid: 21910104