Classifying Renal Pyelocaliceal System: A Complete Literature Overview of All Existing Classification Approaches.

IF 2.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Journal of endourology Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1089/end.2024.0693
Ali Talyshinskii, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, B M Zeeshan Hameed, Lazaros Tzelves, Amelia Pietropaolo, Bhaskar Kumar Somani
{"title":"Classifying Renal Pyelocaliceal System: A Complete Literature Overview of All Existing Classification Approaches.","authors":"Ali Talyshinskii, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, B M Zeeshan Hameed, Lazaros Tzelves, Amelia Pietropaolo, Bhaskar Kumar Somani","doi":"10.1089/end.2024.0693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Our comprehension of the actual diversity of kidney pyelocaliceal system (PCS) is lacking and many crucial features have been overlooked in the existing literature on this subject. The purpose of this review is to provide a concise summary of the current understanding of the structure of the pelvicalyceal system, considering both anatomical and surgical perspectives, as well as to highlight any limitations or inconsistencies in these approaches. <b><i>Material and Methods:</i></b> A full review of all the literature on the anatomical and surgical methods used to classify pelvicalyceal system was conducted in several databases in August 2024. This included all the articles that talked about classifications for the whole pelvicalyceal system, minor calyces, and morphometric measurements within the pelvicalyceal system. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Despite over a century of studying this anatomical zone and numerous approaches, some classifications still rely on pelvic branching or the division site related to the renal sinus. However, no single classification has incorporated both aspects. In addition, despite the consensus regarding the number of minor calyces, there are many approaches to determining their orientation. Finally, researchers have described a sufficient number of morphometric measurements within the pelvicalyceal system, considering their prognostic value before endourological interventions and their correlation with individual patterns of the structure of pelvicalyceal system. However, these measurements often lead to contradictions in interpreting the anatomical favorability of the same pelvicalyceal system using different approaches. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Despite the numerous approaches to identify pelvicalyceal system from both morphological and surgical perspectives, there are significant gaps in our understanding of the real anatomy of the renal cavity that, even after more than a century, remain unanswered. There needs to be more correlation of anatomy with modern minimally invasive clinical interventions for stone disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":15723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of endourology","volume":" ","pages":"405-417"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of endourology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0693","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Our comprehension of the actual diversity of kidney pyelocaliceal system (PCS) is lacking and many crucial features have been overlooked in the existing literature on this subject. The purpose of this review is to provide a concise summary of the current understanding of the structure of the pelvicalyceal system, considering both anatomical and surgical perspectives, as well as to highlight any limitations or inconsistencies in these approaches. Material and Methods: A full review of all the literature on the anatomical and surgical methods used to classify pelvicalyceal system was conducted in several databases in August 2024. This included all the articles that talked about classifications for the whole pelvicalyceal system, minor calyces, and morphometric measurements within the pelvicalyceal system. Results: Despite over a century of studying this anatomical zone and numerous approaches, some classifications still rely on pelvic branching or the division site related to the renal sinus. However, no single classification has incorporated both aspects. In addition, despite the consensus regarding the number of minor calyces, there are many approaches to determining their orientation. Finally, researchers have described a sufficient number of morphometric measurements within the pelvicalyceal system, considering their prognostic value before endourological interventions and their correlation with individual patterns of the structure of pelvicalyceal system. However, these measurements often lead to contradictions in interpreting the anatomical favorability of the same pelvicalyceal system using different approaches. Conclusion: Despite the numerous approaches to identify pelvicalyceal system from both morphological and surgical perspectives, there are significant gaps in our understanding of the real anatomy of the renal cavity that, even after more than a century, remain unanswered. There needs to be more correlation of anatomy with modern minimally invasive clinical interventions for stone disease.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肾盂局部系统分类:所有现有分类方法的完整文献综述。
我们对肾盂局部系统(PCS)的实际多样性的理解是缺乏的,许多重要的特征在现有的文献中被忽视了。本综述的目的是简要总结目前对骨盆骨盆系统结构的理解,从解剖学和外科角度考虑,并强调这些入路的局限性或不一致性。材料和方法:我们于2024年8月在多个数据库中全面查阅了所有关于骨盆骨系统分类的解剖学和外科方法的文献。这包括了所有讨论整个骨盆骨系统的分类,小骨盏,以及骨盆骨系统的形态测量的文章。结果:尽管对该解剖区进行了一个多世纪的研究和多种方法,但一些分类仍然依赖于盆腔分支或与肾窦相关的划分部位。然而,没有一种分类将这两个方面都包括在内。此外,尽管对小花萼的数量有共识,但有许多方法来确定它们的取向。最后,研究人员描述了足够数量的骨盆骨盆系统形态测量,考虑到它们在泌尿系统干预前的预后价值以及它们与骨盆骨盆系统个体结构模式的相关性。然而,这些测量常常导致矛盾的解释解剖有利的骨盆骨系统使用不同的方法。结论:尽管从形态学和外科角度识别骨盆骨盆系统的方法很多,但即使在一个多世纪后,我们对肾腔的真实解剖结构的理解仍存在重大差距。需要更多的解剖学与现代微创临床干预对结石疾病的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of endourology
Journal of endourology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
14.80%
发文量
254
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Endourology, JE Case Reports, and Videourology are the leading peer-reviewed journal, case reports publication, and innovative videojournal companion covering all aspects of minimally invasive urology research, applications, and clinical outcomes. The leading journal of minimally invasive urology for over 30 years, Journal of Endourology is the essential publication for practicing surgeons who want to keep up with the latest surgical technologies in endoscopic, laparoscopic, robotic, and image-guided procedures as they apply to benign and malignant diseases of the genitourinary tract. This flagship journal includes the companion videojournal Videourology™ with every subscription. While Journal of Endourology remains focused on publishing rigorously peer reviewed articles, Videourology accepts original videos containing material that has not been reported elsewhere, except in the form of an abstract or a conference presentation. Journal of Endourology coverage includes: The latest laparoscopic, robotic, endoscopic, and image-guided techniques for treating both benign and malignant conditions Pioneering research articles Controversial cases in endourology Techniques in endourology with accompanying videos Reviews and epochs in endourology Endourology survey section of endourology relevant manuscripts published in other journals.
期刊最新文献
Mini-Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Management of Renal Stones in Pediatric Age Group Less Than 6 Years with Renal Stones Less Than 20 mm. A Prospective, Randomized Trial. Comparative Pressure Measurement Performance of the Glean Urodynamics System-a Novel Wireless and Catheter-Free Urodynamics Device. Evaluating Visual Discomfort Among Robotic Urologic Surgeons: Insights from A Survey on Eye Strain and Accommodative Lag. Is Fluoroscopy Needed for Endourologic Treatment of Ureteral and Renal Stones? Results from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Studies by the FUTURE Collaborative of the Endourological Society. Validation of a Renal Papillary Grading System: Comparison of Patients Forming Calcium Oxalate and Apatite Stones.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1