2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Ureteroscopy and ureterorenoscopy.

Technical advances, including miniaturization, have improved the deflection and optical performance of the ureteroscopes, and the availability of dedicated disposable devices have led to their increasing use for kidney and ureteral stone management. Ureterorenoscopy brings diagnostic evidence through the endoscopic description of stones and renal papillary abnormalities. Currently, intracorporeal lithotripsy during ureterorenoscopy is based on laser sources. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary before ureterorenoscopy, especially because preoperative stenting for>30 days is considered as an independent risk factor of infection. Ureteral access sheaths allow the easy and repeated access to the upper urinary tract and thus facilitate ureterorenoscopy. Their use improves vision, decreases intrarenal pressure, and possibly reduces the operative time, but they may cause ureteral injury. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

[Diagnosis and treatment of four cases of asymptomatic and non-hydrous ureteral calculi].

This paper analyzed the clinical data, diagnosis and treatment of 4 asymptomatic patients with ureteral calculi without hydrops in our hospital from October 2018 to January 2019, and comprehensively discussed the previous literature. The 4 patients in this group had no obvious clinical symptoms, no positive stones were found in the B-ultrasound of the urinary system, and no hydroureter and hydroureter of the affected side was found. Urinary CT scan confirmed ureteral stones. They were all located in the lower ureter, and the stones obstructed the lumen. The stones were round and smooth, and there was no obvious hyperplasia and edema in the surrounding mucosa. The lithotripsy was completed in the first-stage operation, and the DJ catheter was left behind for one month after the operation. Based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment process of the 4 cases of asymptomatic calculi in this group and the analysis of previous studies, these patients were mostly detected by imaging examinations or other systematic imaging examinations during the regular review of urinary calculi. Ureteral stones with obstruction did not necessarily have stone-related symptoms. The onset of renal colic involved an increase in intraluminal pressure, related stimulation of nerve endings, smooth muscle spasms caused by stretching of the ureteral wall, and systemic changes in cytokines and related hormones. Cascade reactions, etc., were associated with the movement of stones down. Ureteral stones without hydrops were mostly located in the lower ureter, which had a certain buffering effect on obstructive pressure. Asymptomatic ureteral calculi could also induce irreversible damage to renal function, and the proportion of damage increased with the diameter of the stone. Patients with a history of urinary calculi, especially those with asymptomatic stones for the first time, should be paid attention to during clinical follow-up. At present, there are few research reports on asymptomatic and non-accumulating ureteral calculi. We analyze the clinical diagnosis and treatment process and characteristics of this group of patients combined with previous literature to provide a reference for the diagnosis and treatment of such patients.

Analysis of uroseptic shock after ureteroscopy for ureteral calculi during pregnancy: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Uroseptic shock secondary to ureteral calculi during pregnancy is rare. It is characterized by rapid onset, rapid progression, aggressive disease, limited treatment, poor prognosis, and a mortality rate higher than 20% with improper or delayed management. A clear diagnosis is made based on typical clinical symptoms and abdominal ultrasound, often requiring combined multidisciplinary treatment and the simultaneous release of the obstruction. The high mortality rate is mainly related to inappropriate early treatment of stones and infections or failure to intervene in a timely manner. CASE PRESENTATION: A 21-year-old first-time pregnant patient with uroseptic shock was admitted to our intensive care unit. The patient was successfully treated at our hospital with multidisciplinary cooperation, high-dose vasoactive drugs, IABP, CRRT, VA-ECMO, and termination of pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Timely relief of obstructions, termination of pregnancy, and the provision of IABP, CRRT, and VA-ECMO when necessary in critically ill patients with uroseptic shock during pregnancy can improve the success rate of resuscitation.

What is the role of inflammatory markers in predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage?

PURPOSE: To investigate the role of inflammatory markers in predicting the spontaneous passage of ureteral stones. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 279 patients with ureteral stones sized 4-10 mm that were managed conservatively. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 consisted of 137 patients who passed the stone spontaneously; Group 2 comprised 142 patients without spontaneous stone passage. The groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests. In addition, univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the significance of the parameters. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 41.2 years. The patients in Group 1 had a significantly lower mean stone size, white blood cell count and neutrophil count. In addition, stone location, presence of hydronephrosis and history of urolithiasis were significantly different between the groups. Neutrophil percentage, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio were insignificantly lower in Group 1. In a multivariate analysis, stone size, distal location and hydronephrosis status significantly predicted the spontaneous stone passage. However, inflammatory markers including white blood cell count, neutrophil count and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio could not determine the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that inflammatory markers are no meaningful parameters for the prediction of spontaneous stone passage.

Development of prediction models of spontaneous ureteral stone passage through machine learning: Comparison with conventional statistical analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a prediction model of spontaneous ureteral stone passage (SSP) using machine learning and logistic regression and compare the performance of the two models. Indications for management of ureteral stones are unclear, and the clinician determines whether to wait for SSP or perform active treatment, especially in well-controlled patients, to avoid unwanted complications. Therefore, suggesting the possibility of SSP would help make a clinical decision regarding ureteral stones. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with unilateral ureteral stones at our emergency department between August 2014 and September 2018 were included and underwent non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography 4 weeks from the first stone episode. Predictors of SSP were applied to build and validate the prediction model using multilayer perceptron (MLP) with the Keras framework. RESULTS: Of 833 patients, SSP was observed in 606 (72.7%). SSP rates were 68.2% and 75.6% for stone sizes 5-10 mm and <5 mm, respectively. Stone opacity, location, and whether it was the first ureteral stone episode were significant predictors of SSP. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for MLP, and logistic regression were 0.859 and 0.847, respectively, for stones <5 mm, and 0.881 and 0.817, respectively, for 5-10 mm stones. CONCLUSION: SSP prediction models were developed in patients with well-controlled unilateral ureteral stones; the performance of the models was good, especially in identifying SSP for 5-10-mm ureteral stones without definite treatment guidelines. To further improve the performance of these models, future studies should focus on using machine learning techniques in image analysis.

Clinical differentiation between acute renal infarction and acute ureteral stone in the emergency department: A single-center retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared renal infarction (RI) and ureteral stone (US), so there is insufficient evidence for emergency clinicians (ECs) to quickly suspect RI during the first assessment. Therefore, we compared the initial clinical presentation and laboratory findings of these diseases in the emergency department (ED) to determine a factor that may indicate RI. METHODS: This single-center retrospective case-control study included 42 patients with acute RI and 210 with US who visited the ED from 2014 to 2020. Medical record data from first ED arrival were investigated, and clinical presentations, blood and urine test results obtained in the ED were compared and analyzed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: ECs never suspected the initial diagnosis of RI as RI. The most common initial diagnosis was US (40.5%). Among patients with US, 150 patients (71.4%) were suspected of having US (p < 0.001). Abdominal pain (61.9%) was the most common chief complaint in the RI group, and flank pain (73.8%) was the most common in the US group (p < 0.001). 27 factors showed significant differences between the groups. Among those, age ≥ 70 years (odds ratio [OR]: 311.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-47,833.1), history of A-fib (OR: 149872.8, 95% CI: 289.4-7.8E+07), fever ≥37.5 °C (OR: 297.3, 95% CI: 3.3-27,117.8), Cl- ≤ 103 mEq/L (OR: 9.0, 95% CI: 1.0-80.1), albumin ≤4.3 g/dL (OR: 26.6, 95% CI: 2.1-330.3), LDH ≥500 IU/L (OR: 17.9, 95% CI: 1.8-182.5), and CRP ≥0.23 mg/dL (OR: 7.5, 95% CI: 1.1-52.3) showed significantly high ORs, whereas urine RBCs (OR: 0, 95% CI: 0-0.02) showed a low OR (p < 0.05). The regression model showed good calibration (chi-square: 6.531, p = 0.588) and good discrimination (area under the curve = 0.9913). CONCLUSIONS: When differentiating acute RI from US in the ED, age ≥ 70 years, history of A-fib, fever ≥37.5 °C, LDH ≥500 IU/L, Cl- ≤ 103 mEq/L, albumin ≤4.3 g/dL, CRP ≥0.23 mg/dL and negative urine RBC result suggest the possibility of RI.

Optimal duration of preoperative antibiotic treatment prior to ureteroscopic lithotripsy to prevent postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome in patients presenting with urolithiasis-induced obstructive acute pyelonephritis.

PURPOSE: There is no consensus on the optimal duration of preoperative antibiotic treatment prior to ureteroscopic lithotripsy in patients presenting with urolithiasis-induced obstructive acute pyelonephritis (APN). We aimed to identify surgeon-modifiable, preoperative risk factors associated with postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study evaluated 115 patients who presented with urolithiasis-induced obstructive APN between January 2008 and December 2019. All patients were administered intravenous third-generation cephalosporin until culture sensitivity confirmation or until ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Data were collected for age, sex, diabetes mellitus, performance status, stone features, hydronephrosis grade, preoperative renal collecting system drainage, laboratory data, operative time, and duration of preoperative antibiotic treatment. Sensitivity analysis using Youden's index and logistic regression analysis were used to assess risk factors of postoperative SIRS. RESULTS: Postoperative SIRS was identified in 32 (27.8%) patients. The incidence of postoperative SIRS was higher in patients who received preoperative antibiotic treatment for fewer than 14 days (38.8% vs. 12.5%; p=0.001). Backward variable selection logistic regression analysis revealed maximal stone diameter ≥15 mm, duration of preoperative antibiotic treatment <14 days, and preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≥6.0 mg/L to be associated with higher risk of postoperative SIRS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with urolithiasis-induced obstructive APN planned for ureteroscopic lithotripsy should be administered at least 14 days of preoperative antibiotic administration and achieve a serum CRP level ≤6.0 mg/L to minimize the risk of postoperative SIRS.

The Effect of Shock Wave Lithotripsy on Male and Female Sexual Dysfunction in Patients with Proximal Ureteral Stones.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to investigate the effects of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) treatment for proximal ureteral stones on the sexual functions of patients of both genders. METHODS: In this prospective study, 30 female and 72 male patients who had received SWL treatment for proximal ureteral stones in our clinic between August 2019 and October 2020 were evaluated. CT, creatinine, urinary analysis, and culture were performed during the initial consultation for all patients. Information regarding the age, BMI, and stone burden of the patients was recorded. Male patients answered the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5) questionnaire, and female participants answered the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) 3 times: pre-procedural and post-procedural first and third month. CT was repeated on the first month, and any residues were noted. RESULTS: The mean IIEF-5 scores of the male patients were 23.11 ± 8.11 prior to surgery, and it decreased to 19.74 ± 7.65 in the first month and 23.88 ± 9.23 in the third, p = 0.001. The mean FSFI scores of female patients were 18.2 ± 9.9, which decreased to 12.8 ± 6.12 in the first month and 17.8 ± 8.66 in the third, p = 0.001. Univariate analysis revealed that the patients' age (male: p = 0.004 and female: p = 0.008) and BMI (male: p = 0.044 and female: p = 0.027) were related to the poorer scores for both genders. However, there were not any significant findings regarding stone burden (male: p = 0.054 and female: p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: The possibility of developing temporary sexual dysfunction should be taken into account for patients who are candidates for SWL treatment. As the patient's age and BMI increase, SWL-related sexual dysfunction becomes more severe.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from "very low" to "moderate" for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

The prospective evaluation of the effectiveness of scoring systems in the emergency department in cases with suspected ureteral stones: STONE? CHOKAI?

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the effectiveness of CHOKAI and STONE scores in patients presenting to the emergency department with ureteral stones. METHODS: Patients over the age of 18 who were admitted to the emergency department with flank pain, groin pain, scrotal pain, and hematuria and who were performed non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) for diagnostic imaging were included. The numeric pain, CHOKAI, and STONE scores of the patients were calculated. The effectiveness of these scoring systems in the presence of stones was examined. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included in the study. In the analysis performed to investigate whether there was a difference between the numeric pain, STONE, and CHOKAI scores in terms of the presence of stones on CT, it was seen that the CHOKAI score was significantly different from the others (p < 0.001). A significant positive correlation was found between the CHOKAI score and stone size (r = 0.343, p < 0.001).When the cut-off value of the CHOKAI score was >7, the sensitivity was found to be 60.49%, and specificity was 83.33%. The cut-off value for the STONE score was >8 with a sensitivity of 70.37% and specificity of 58.33%. The corresponding area under curve values for the CHOHAI and STONE scores was 0.788 (p < 0.0001) and 0.615 (p = 0.087). Male sex, the CHOKAI, and STONE scores were the independent risk factors for ureteral stone. A significant positive correlation was found between the CHOKAI score and stone size (r = 0.343, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The CHOKAI score has a higher performance than the STONE score in detecting the presence of ureteral stones. NEW KNOWLEDGE ADDED BY THIS STUDY: The CHOKAI score has a higher performance than the STONE score in detecting the presence of ureteral stones. Especially in countries such as Turkey, where there are no specific racial differences, the STONE score may be diagnostically insufficient. The CHOKAI score shows the presence of the patient's stone and positively correlates with the size of the stone and the stone location. IMPLICATION FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE OR POLICY: In the functioning of the emergency department, it is important to make the differential diagnosis of patients quickly and provide effective treatment. The use of diagnostic scoring systems saves time for the emergency physician in the differential diagnosis phase and guides in terms of applying for possible additional imaging methods.

Artificial intelligence in stone disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Artificial intelligence (AI) is the ability of a machine, or computer, to simulate intelligent behavior. In medicine, the use of large datasets enables a computer to learn how to perform cognitive tasks, thereby facilitating medical decision-making. This review aims to describe advancements in AI in stone disease to improve diagnostic accuracy in determining stone composition, to predict outcomes of surgical procedures or watchful waiting and ultimately to optimize treatment choices for patients. RECENT FINDINGS: AI algorithms show high accuracy in different realms including stone detection and in the prediction of surgical outcomes. There are machine learning algorithms for outcomes after percutaneous nephrolithotomy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, and for ureteral stone passage. Some of these algorithms show better predictive capabilities compared to existing scoring systems and nomograms. SUMMARY: The use of AI can facilitate the development of diagnostic and treatment algorithms in patients with stone disease. Although the generalizability and external validity of these algorithms remain uncertain, the development of highly accurate AI-based tools may enable the urologist to provide more customized patient care and superior outcomes.

Evaluation of the patients with flank pain in the emergency department by modified STONE score.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Computed tomography (CT) is generally used for ureteral stone diagnosis. Unnecessary imaging use should be reduced to prevent increased radiation exposure and lower costs. For this reason, scoring systems that evaluate the risk of ureteral stones have been developed. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the modified STONE score (MSS) and its ability to predict ureteral stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research was conducted as a multi-center, prospective and observational study. Patients aged 18 and over who presented to EDs with complaints of flank pain and who received a CT were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of stones, and the categories of the MSS were determined. The ability of the MSS to predict the ureteral stone and its diagnostic accuracy were calculated. RESULTS: The median age (min/max) of the 367 study patients was 37 (18/91), and 244 (66.5%) were male. A ureteral stone was present in 228 (73.0%) patients. Male gender, previous stone history, duration of pain less than 6 h, presence of hematuria, and CRP value below 0.5 mg/dL were significantly more common in the group with stones. The prevalence of ureter stones in the MSS high-risk group was 96.0%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and sensitivity of the MSS was 0.903 and 0.81, respectively. CONCLUSION: The modified STONE score has high diagnostic performance in suspected urinary stone cases. This scoring system can assist clinicians with radiation reducing decision-making.

Shockwave Lithotripsy Versus Ureteroscopic Treatment as Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU): A Multicentre Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Renal stone disease is common and can cause emergency presentation with acute pain due to ureteric colic. International guidelines have stated the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine whether a non-invasive outpatient (shockwave lithotripsy [SWL]) or surgical (ureteroscopy [URS]) intervention should be the first-line treatment for those needing active intervention. This has implications for shaping clinical pathways. OBJECTIVE: To report a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority RCT comparing SWL with URS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This trial tested for non-inferiority of up to two sessions of SWL compared with URS as initial treatment for ureteric stones requiring intervention. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was whether further intervention was required to clear the stone, and secondary outcomes included quality of life assessment, severity of pain, and serious complications; these were based on questionnaires at baseline, 8 wk, and 6 mo. We included patients over 16 yr with a single ureteric stone clinically deemed to require intervention. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were planned. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The study recruited between July 1, 2013 and June 30, 2017. We recruited 613 participants from a total of 1291 eligible patients, randomising 306 to SWL and 307 to URS. Sixty-seven patients (22.1%) in the SWL arm needed further treatment compared with 31 patients (10.3%) in the URS arm. The absolute risk difference was 11.7% (95% confidence interval 5.6%, 17.8%) in favour of URS, which was inside the 20% threshold we set for demonstrating noninferiority of SWL. CONCLUSIONS: This RCT was designed to test whether SWL is non-inferior to URS and confirmed this; although SWL is an outpatient noninvasive treatment with potential advantages both for patients and for reducing the use of inpatient health care resources, the trial showed a benefit in overall clinical outcomes with URS compared with SWL, reflecting contemporary practice. The Therapeutic Interventions for Stones of the Ureter (TISU) study provides new evidence to help guide the choice of modality for this common health condition. PATIENT SUMMARY: We present the largest trial comparing ureteroscopy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones. While ureteroscopy had marginally improved outcome in terms of stone clearance, as expected, shockwave lithotripsy had better results in terms of health care costs. These results should enable patients and health care providers to optimise treatment pathways for this common urological condition.

Large distal ureteric stone with high burden urothelial cancer of the entire ureter and renal pelvis: a dual pathology.

Upper-tract urothelial cancer comprises only 3% of all urothelial cancers. Risk factors include tobacco smoking, recurrent urinary infection, urolithiasis and analgesic abuse. Urolithiasis-induced chronic inflammation leads to urothelial proliferation and eventual malignant transformation. The most common association is reported with squamous cell cancer. A 54-year man under evaluation for right flank pain was diagnosed with a large distal ureteric stone and urothelial cancer of the entire right ureter and renal pelvis. The patient underwent right nephroureterectomy and stone retrieval, with urinary bladder cuff excision and pelvic lymph node dissection. On follow-up, the patient succumbed to disease recurrence with widespread metastasis. Urothelial cancer associated with stone disease is atypical. Long-standing inflammation causing metaplastic and dysplastic changes is a possible hypothesis. Careful assessment of the malignancy should be looked for in patients with long-standing obstruction due to stone disease.

Value of early second session shock wave lithotripsy in treatment of upper ureteric stones compared to laser ureteroscopy.

PURPOSE: The safety and efficacy of early second session shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) compared with laser ureteroscopy (URS) for the treatment of upper ureteric stones were evaluated. METHODS: From January to October 2019, 108 patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 Hounsfield unit (HU)) were randomized into SWL and laser URS groups. The second SWL session was performed within 48-72 h of the first session. Using plain abdominal X-ray and ultrasonography, patients were evaluated 48-72 h after the first SWL session and one week after the second and third SWL sessions or one week after URS. The procedure was considered a success when no additional procedures were needed to clear the stone. To determine the stone-free rate (SFR), noncontrast computed tomography of the urinary tract was performed three months postoperatively. RESULTS: In the SWL group, the success rates were 92.6% and 94.4% after the second and third sessions. The SFR was 96.2% in the laser URS group. The success rates were not significantly different between the second and third SWL sessions versus the laser URS (p = 0.418 and 0.660, respectively). Operative and fluoroscopy times were significantly longer in the SWL group (p = 0.001), and JJ stent insertions were needed after laser URS. CONCLUSION: Ultraslow full-power SWL treatment of patients with upper ureteric stones (< 1.5 cm and ≤ 1000 HU) with an early second session is safe and effective compared to laser URS. Patients who do not respond to early second SWL session should be shifted to another treatment modality.

Differentiation of distal ureteral stones and pelvic phleboliths using a convolutional neural network.

The objectives were to develop and validate a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) using local features for differentiating distal ureteral stones from pelvic phleboliths, compare the CNN method with a semi-quantitative method and with radiologists' assessments and to evaluate whether the assessment of a calcification and its local surroundings is sufficient for discriminating ureteral stones from pelvic phleboliths in non-contrast-enhanced CT (NECT). We retrospectively included 341 consecutive patients with acute renal colic and a ureteral stone on NECT showing either a distal ureteral stone, a phlebolith or both. A 2.5-dimensional CNN (2.5D-CNN) model was used, where perpendicular axial, coronal and sagittal images through each calcification were used as input data for the CNN. The CNN was trained on 384 calcifications, and evaluated on an unseen dataset of 50 stones and 50 phleboliths. The CNN was compared to the assessment by seven radiologists who reviewed a local 5 × 5 × 5 cm image stack surrounding each calcification, and to a semi-quantitative method using cut-off values based on the attenuation and volume of the calcifications. The CNN differentiated stones and phleboliths with a sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of 94%, 90% and 92% and an AUC of 0.95. This was similar to a majority vote accuracy of 93% and significantly higher (p = 0.03) than the mean radiologist accuracy of 86%. The semi-quantitative method accuracy was 49%. In conclusion, the CNN differentiated ureteral stones from phleboliths with higher accuracy than the mean of seven radiologists' assessments using local features. However, more than local features are needed to reach optimal discrimination.

CT-related parameters and Framingham score as predictors of spontaneous passage of ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm: results from a prospective, observational, multicenter study.

To investigate the reliability of newly defined CT-related parameters and cardiovascular risk factors in groups adjusted for stone size and location to predict spontaneous stone passage (SP) of uncomplicated ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm. The data of 280 adult patients with solitary unilateral ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm in diameter in non-contrast computed tomography were prospectively recorded. All patients undergoing a four-week observation protocol with medical expulsive therapy using tamsulosin were divided into two groups according to SP or no SP. Demographic, clinical and radiological findings of these groups were recorded. Spontaneous stone passage was observed in 176 (62.9%) of the patients, whereas the SP rate was 57.6% for 118 upper ureteral stones and 66.7% for 162 lower ureteral stones. The SP rate was 13.3 times greater with ureteral wall thickness < 1.88 mm, 4.4 times greater with a ratio of ureter to stone diameter of < 1.24, 3.4 times greater with Framingham score of < 11.5%, 2 times greater with neutrophil lymphocyte ratio < 1.96, 1.9 times greater with ureteral diameter < 6.33 mm and 1.5 times greater with stone volume < 38.54 mm3. Lower levels of ureteral wall thickness, ratio of ureter to stone diameter, Framingham score, neutrophil lymphocyte ratio, ureteral diameter, stone volume and absence of hydronephrosis were found to be more successful predictors. We consider that the success rate can be increased by selection of the proper option (observation or active treatment) according to these predictors.

Which Patients Should Have Early Surgical Intervention for Acute Ureteral Colic?

PURPOSE: Early surgical intervention is an attractive option for acute ureteral colic but existing evidence does not clarify which patients benefit. We compared treatment failure rates in patients receiving early intervention and patients offered spontaneous passage to identify subgroups that benefit from early intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used administrative data and structured chart review to study consecutive patients attending 9 emergency departments in 2 Canadian provinces with confirmed 2.0 to 9.9 mm ureteral stones. We described patient, stone and treatment characteristics, and performed multivariable regression to identify factors associated with treatment failure, defined as intervention or hospitalization within 60 days. Our secondary outcome was emergency department revisit rate. RESULTS: Overall 1,168 of 3,081 patients underwent early intervention. Those with stones smaller than 5 mm experienced more treatment failures (31.5% vs 9.9%, difference 21.6%, 95% CI 16.9 to 21.2) and emergency department revisits (38.5% vs 19.7%, difference 18.8%, 95% CI 13.8 to 23.8) with early intervention than with spontaneous passage. Patients with stones 7.0 mm or larger experienced fewer treatment failures (34.7% vs 58.6%, risk difference 23.9%, 95% CI 11.3 to 36.6) and similar emergency department revisit rates with early intervention. Patients with 5.0 to 6.9 mm stones had fewer treatment failures with intervention (37.4% vs 55.5%, risk difference 18.1%, 95% CI 7.1 to 28.9) if stones were in the proximal or middle ureter. CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention improves outcomes for patients with large (greater than 7 mm) ureteral stones or 5 to 7 mm proximal or mid ureteral stones. Early intervention may increase morbidity for patients with stones smaller than 5 mm. These findings could help inform future guidelines.