stones in kidney

My wife ( 38) had been diagnosed with stones in her kidneys five years ago during a routine examination. But since then they have not caused any pain or any other symptom. Will it be wise to leave the stones undisturbed, or should we go for their surgical removal?

This is a difficult question to deal with. Humans are not born with stones in the kidneys. The presence of such unwanted materials causes problems sooner or later. Since the stones haven?t caused any trouble for the past five years, they can be left alone. Even though the treatment is a surgical one, if it?s not risky then the stones should be got rid off as soon as possible.

missing kidney

I am a 40-year-old man. Recently, when I underwent an ultrasonogram, I was told by the sonologist that I don?t have a kidney on the right side. I?m very worried. Isn?t it a serious problem? Won?t it affect me in later life? Please help me.

There?s nothing to worry about. You are probably one of those rare individuals (one in a million) who are born with a single kidney. You should know that just 65 per cent work by one kidney is sufficient for normal life. Yours can also be a case in which the other kidney is in an unusual position, and may not be detected in an ultrasonogram test. A nuclear scan can detect an unusually-positioned kidney better.

ephritic syndrome

I (18) suffered from multiple episodes of nephritic syndrome in my childhood. Although I am now keeping well, I am worried whether will it cause any long-term effect and result in further kidney damage.

Nephrotic syndrome is a condition where there is profuse leakage of protein in the urine. The commonest cause of this condition is called ?minimal-change disease,? which, as the name implies, does not cause much structural changes in the kidney. This particular ailment usually responds to a four-week course of steroids and has a tendency to recur after varying periods of time. If the kidney functions are normal for 18 years, it is consistent with this diagnosis, and the long-term effects on the kidneys are unlikely. However, I suggest you go for a detailed evaluation, including a kidney biopsy.

kidney failure

After having suffered from kidney failure, my husband (45 ) has been given the option of going for either dialysis or kidney transplantation. We are confused. What are the pros and cons?

Transplantation is better than dialysis since it replaces the diseased kidney with a healthy one. Both dialysis and transplantation have their share of advantages and disadvantages. For transplantation, the tissues of the donor should match with those of the recipient. This is possible if both the recipient and the donor are blood relatives. Certain medicines are given before and after transplantation to prevent rejection of the organ. The medicines have strong side-effects and may make the patient susceptible to infections. On the other hand, while dialysis is effective in prolonging the useful life of the recipient, it?s a continuous treatment. It?s also time-consuming and entails certain dietary restrictions.

stone removal

I (45) have been diagnosed with stones in the kidneys. Is lithotripsy a better option than conventional surgery for the removal of the stones? Please suggest.

Kidney stones and urinary tract infections go hand-in-hand. The stones have to be removed as early as possible. Lithotripsy is a method in which stones are removed by high-frequency ultrasound waves which convert the stones into powder form and are removed through the urine. However, the procedure may not be suitable for all patients. Multiple stones may require surgery, while the stones in the ureter may require lithoclast, which crushes the stones, through ureteroscopy. The decision can be taken by the physician depending upon their size and location.

---

YOUR HEALTH
We invite readers’ queries on health problems. Eminent doctors will respond to them in this column every week. Mail your letters to:
KnowHOW,
The Telegraph, 6, Prafulla Sarkar Street, Calcutta 700 001
email: knowhow@abpmail.com