Alkaline Water: Help or Hype for Uric Acid and Cystine Urolithiasis?

PURPOSE: The consumption of alkaline water, water with an average pH of 8 to 10, has been steadily increasing globally as proponents claim it to be a healthier alternative to regular water. Urinary alkalinization therapy is frequently prescribed in patients with uric acid and cystine urolithiasis, and as such we analyzed commercially available alkaline waters to assess their potential to increase urinary pH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five commercially available alkaline water brands (Essentia, Smart Water Alkaline, Great Value Hydrate Alkaline Water, Body Armor SportWater, and Perfect Hydration) underwent anion chromatography and direct chemical measurements to determine the mineral contents of each product. The alkaline content of each bottle of water was then compared to that of potassium citrate (the gold standard for urinary alkalinization) as well as to other beverages and supplements used to augment urinary citrate and/or the urine pH. RESULTS: The pH levels of the bottled alkaline water ranged from 9.69 to 10.15. Electrolyte content was minimal, and the physiologic alkali content was below 1 mEq/L for all brands of alkaline water. The alkali content of alkaline water is minimal when compared to common stone treatment alternatives such as potassium citrate. In addition, several organic beverages, synthetic beverages, and other supplements contain more alkali content than alkaline water, and can achieve the AUA and European Association of Urology alkali recommendation of 30 to 60 mEq per day with ≤ 3 servings/d. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available alkaline water has negligible alkali content and thus provides no added benefit over tap water for patients with uric acid and cystine urolithiasis.

Break Wave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis: Results of the First-in-Human International Multi-Institutional Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: This study reports on a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, clinical trial utilizing the SonoMotion (San Mateo, California) Break Wave lithotripsy (BWL) device to fragment urinary stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a urinary stone underwent a single treatment of 30 minutes and peak negative pressure of 4.5 to 8 MPa. Subjects were contacted and outcomes assessed at 7, 14, and 35 days after treatment, with clinical follow-up and CT imaging 70 ± 14 days postprocedure. The primary objectives were to assess the safety (hematomas, complications, etc) and effectiveness of BWL (any fragmentation, residual fragments ≤4 mm or ≤2 mm, and completely stone-free rate) as assessed via noncontrast CT-kidneys, ureters, and bladder. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with a ureteral (43%) or renal (57%) stone were treated across 5 centers. Stone fragmentation occurred in 88% of cases; 70% had fragments ≤ 4 and 51% ≤ 2 mm, while 49% were completely stone free on CT; no serious adverse events were reported. Eighty-six percent of patients received either no analgesic medication at all (50%) or minor analgesia (36%). After determining optimal therapy settings, 36 patients were treated and the effectiveness improved exhibiting fragmentation in 92% (33/36), residual fragments ≤ 4 mm in 75% and 58% with fragments ≤ 2 mm with 58% completely stone free. Effectiveness was less in subjects with lower pole stones with 81% fragmentation, 71% having fragments ≤ 4 mm, 29% with fragments ≤ 2 mm, and 29% completely stone free; of distal ureteral stone patients, 89% were completely stone free. CONCLUSIONS: BWL offered safe and effective noninvasive stone therapy requiring little to no anesthesia and was carried out successfully in nonoperative environments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03811171.

Follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment: an algorithm from the EAU Urolithiasis Panel.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a follow-up algorithm for urinary stone patients after definitive treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panel performed a systematic review on follow-up of urinary stone patients after treatment (PROSPERO: CRD42020205739). Given the lack of comparative studies we critically evaluated the literature and reached a consensus on the follow-up scheme. RESULTS: A total of 76 studies were included in the analysis, including 17 RCTs. In the stone-free general population group, 71-100% of patients are stone-free at 12 months while 29-94% remain stone-free at 36 months. We propose counselling these patients on imaging versus discharge after the first year. The stone-free rate in high-risk patients not receiving targeted medical therapy is < 40% at 36 months, a fact that supports imaging, metabolic, and treatment monitoring follow-up once a year. Patients with residual fragments ≤ 4 mm have a spontaneous expulsion rate of 18-47% and a growth rate of 10-41% at 12 months, supporting annual imaging follow-up. Patients with residual fragments > 4 mm should be considered for surgical re-intervention based on the low spontaneous expulsion rate (13% at 1 year) and high risk of recurrence. Plain film KUB and/or kidney ultrasonography based on clinicians' preference and stone characteristics is the preferred imaging follow-up. Computed tomography should be considered if patient is symptomatic or intervention is planned. CONCLUSIONS: Based on evidence from the systematic review we propose, for the first time, a follow-up algorithm for patients after surgical stone treatment balancing the risks of stone recurrence against the burden of radiation from imaging studies.

Development of the self-management scale for urolithiasis patients with indwelling double-J tube.

PURPOSE: To develop a specific self-management scale applicable to patients with indwelling double-J tube in urolithiasis, and to test its reliability and validity. METHODS: The construction and validation of our scale involved three stages. First, an initial version of the questionnaire was formed through literature analysis, group discussions, semi-structured interviews, and the Delphi method. Second, a pre-survey was conducted with 20 urolithiasis patients with indwelling double-J stent placement to test their understanding of the initial questionnaire items and its acceptability. Finally, a formal survey of 234 patients with indwelling double-J tube for urolithiasis was conducted, and the scale was tested for reliability and validity. RESULTS: After the three stages, a specific self-management scale for urolithiasis patients with indwelling double-J tube was developed, consisting of 30 items across five dimensions with a cumulative contribution rate of 52.541%. The content validity index for item level ranged from 0.8 to 1, and the content validity index for the questionnaire level was 0.93. The correlation between each item and its dimension was > 0.4. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the overall questionnaire was 0.910, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients for each dimension ranged from 0.672 to 0.865. The split-half reliability of the overall questionnaire was 0.864, and the split-half reliabilities for each dimension ranged from 0.659 to 0.827. The test-retest reliability of the overall questionnaire was 0.840, and the test-retest reliabilities for each dimension ranged from 0.674 to 0.818. CONCLUSION: The specific self-management scale for urolithiasis patients with indwelling double-J tube has good reliability and validity, and it is a reliable and effective tool for evaluating and assessing the self-management level of patients with indwelling double-J tube in urolithiasis.

Consensus statement addressing controversies and guidelines on pediatric urolithiasis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate controversial pediatric urolithiasis issues systematically, integrating expert consensus and comprehensive guidelines reviews. METHODS: Two semi-structured online focus group meetings were conducted to discuss the study's need and content, review current literature, and prepare the initial survey. Data were collected through surveys and focus group discussions. Existing guidelines were reviewed, and a second survey was conducted using the Delphi method to validate findings and facilitate consensus. The primary outcome measures investigated controversial issues, integrating expert consensus and guideline reviews. RESULTS: Experts from 15 countries participated, including 20 with 16+ years of experience, 2 with 11-15 years, and 4 with 6-10 years. The initial survey identified nine main themes, emphasizing the need for standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols and tailored treatments. Inter-rater reliability was high, with controversies in treatment approaches (score 4.6, 92% agreement), follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement), and diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement). The second survey underscored the critical need for consensus on identification, diagnostic criteria (score 4.6, 92% agreement), and standardized follow-up protocols (score 4.8, 100% agreement). CONCLUSION: The importance of personalized treatment in pediatric urolithiasis is clear. Prioritizing low-radiation diagnostic tools, effectively managing residual stone fragments, and standardized follow-up protocols are crucial for improving patient outcomes. Integrating new technologies while ensuring safety and reliability is also essential. Harmonizing guidelines across regions can provide consistent and effective management. Future efforts should focus on collaborative research, specialized training, and the integration of new technologies in treatment protocols.

Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis.

PURPOSE: Urolithiasis has become increasingly prevalent, leading to higher disability-adjusted life years and deaths. Various stone classification systems have been developed to enhance the understanding of lithogenesis, aid urologists in treatment decisions, and predict recurrence risk. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of different stone classification criteria. METHODS: Two authors conducted a review of literature on studies relating to the classification of urolithiasis. A narrative synthesis for analysis of the studies was used. RESULTS: Stones can be categorized based on anatomical position, size, medical imaging features, risk of recurrence, etiology, composition, and morphoconstitutional analysis. The first three mentioned offer a straightforward approach to stone classification, directly influencing treatment recommendations. With the routine use of CT imaging before treatment, precise details like anatomical location, stone dimensions, and Hounsfield Units can be easily determined, aiding treatment planning. In contrast, classifying stones based on risk of recurrence and etiology is more complex due to dependencies on multiple variables, including stone composition and morphology. A classification system based on morphoconstitutional analysis, which combines morphological stone appearance and chemical composition, has demonstrated its value. It allows for the rapid identification of crystalline phase principles, the detection of crystalline conversion processes, the determination of etiopathogenesis, the recognition of lithogenic processes, the assessment of crystal formation speed, related recurrence rates, and guidance for selecting appropriate treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing that no single classification system can comprehensively cover all aspects, the integration of all classification approaches is essential for tailoring urolithiasis patient-specific management.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) guideline on staghorn calculi management.

BACKGROUND: The stone burden based management strategy reported in the guidelines published by different associations is well known for a long time. Staghorn calculi, representing the largest burden and most complex stones, is one of the most challenging cases to practicing urologists in clinical practice. The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) has released a series of guidelines on the management of urolithiasis. PURPOSE: To develop a series of recommendations for the contemporary management management of staghorn calculi and to provide a clinical framework for urologists treating patients with these complex stones. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for articles published in English between 01/01/1976 and 31/12/2022 in the PubMed, OVID, Embase and Medline database is performed. A series of recommendations are developed and individually graded following the review of literature and panel discussion. RESULTS: The definition, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, preoperative evaluation, intraoperative treatment strategies and procedural advice, early postoperative management, follow up and prevention of stone recurrence are summarized in the present document. CONCLUSION: A series of recommendations regarding the management of staghorn calculi, along with related commentary and supporting documentation offered in the present guideline is intended to provide a clinical framework for the practicing urologists in the management of staghorn calculi.

Challenges in diagnosis and treatment of cystinuria patients with Urolithiasis: multicenter patient centered study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Cystinuria represents a rare cause of urolithiasis, accounting for 1% of all cases. However, it poses unique challenges in diagnosis and management. This study aimed to examine the challenges of managing cystine stones from the perspective of cystinuria patients. METHODS: Following ethical approval, we reviewed the medical records of cystine stone patients treated at four tertiary centers from 2016 to 2021 and surveyed them on their perceptions of cystinuria. It included questions about demographic characteristics, herbal treatments, pain management, online engagement, disease outcomes, and cystinuria-related fears. RESULTS: The study included 28 adults with cystinuria nephrolithiasis, with a mean age of 30.5 years. Of these, 78.6% had consanguineous parents, and the first stone episode occurred at a mean of 14.82 years age. Family history of Cystinuria was encountered in 82.1%. Cystinuria was diagnosed after a mean of 6.43 years from the first stone episode, and stone analysis was performed in 22/28 after a mean of 3.86 years from the first stone episode. Only 17 patients (60.8%) underwent metabolic evaluation for kidney stones. Regarding non-surgical treatments, 13 (46.5%) patients received alkalinization medication, and only 10 (35.7%) were prescribed chelating agent therapy. Additionally, 50% of patients took herbal remedies. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of cystinuria is often delayed, leading to a delay in receiving medical treatment (alkalinization and chelating agents) and poor health education and counseling. Thus, referring cystinuria patients to tertiary hospitals and providing a multidisciplinary approach might decrease the morbidity of the disease and enhance their well-being.

Development and preliminary validation of a diagnostic prediction model to optimise outpatient management of patients with urolithiasis using urinary stones and intervention quality of life (USIQoL) measure.

PURPOSE: Patients with urinary calculi undergo resource-intensive follow-up. Application of a PROM, Urinary Stones and Intervention Quality of Life (USIQoL), can potentially optimise current practices if it matches the outcomes of traditional follow-up. Our objective was to develop, and conduct, a preliminary validation of the USIQoL based prediction model to aid triage. METHODS: We performed a two phase prospective cohort study. The 1st phase included development of the USIQoL-based decision model using multicentre data. The 2nd phase involved prospective single-blind external validation for the outpatient application. The aim was to evaluate correlations between the USIQoL scores and key predictors; clinical outcomes and global health ratings (EuroQoL EQ-5D). We used statistical analysis to validate USIQoL cut-off scores to aid triage and the decision to intervene. RESULTS: Of 503 patients invited, 91% (n = 455, Development [305] and Validation [150]; M = 308, F = 147) participated. The relationship between USIQoL domain scores and clinical outcomes was consistently significant (estimated odds: PPH 1.24, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.13-1.36; PSH 1.22, p < 0.001, 95% CI 1.12-1.33). The ROC values for the model were ≥ 0.75. The optimum domain cut-off scores were derived with rising scores implying increased need to intervene. The model demonstrated satisfactory sensitivity (0.81-0.89) and specificity (0.36-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates satisfactory correlation between the USIQoL and clinical outcomes making this model a valid aid for triage and optimising outpatient management with the cut-off scores able to identify high risk patients who need active treatment.

Telemedicine in Endourology for Patient Management and Healthcare Delivery: Current Status and Future Perspectives.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Researchers have examined how telemedicine affects endourological patients. This review analyzes the literature to determine telemedicine's benefits and limitations in endourology. RECENT FINDINGS: Many studies were devoted to describing the effect of telemedicine on endourological patient satisfaction, optimization of the clinical decision-making among patients with kidney and ureteric stones, the effectiveness of telemedicine in the management of patients with indications for PCNL, follow-up for patients with urolithiasis and describing financial effectiveness for the patients after BOO surgery. The authors describe phone calls, video calls, and online booking platforms as used as telemedicine technology. However, several concerns also exist, such as the necessity of internet connections and appropriate devices, different receptivity among certain subgroups, data safety, and different regulatory environments among countries. Telemedicine offers the potential to reduce patient travel time, expedite decision-making, and save costs in endourology. However, its everyday implementation is challenging due to various obstacles faced by patients and providers, hindering the realization of its full potential and necessitating a systematic approach to problem-solving.

Comparison of Thulium Fiber Laser versus Holmium laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a Meta-analysis and systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of thulium fiber laser (TFL) to holmium: YAG (Ho: YAG) laser in ureteroscopic lithotripsy for urolithiasis. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, SinoMed, CNKI database, VIP and Wanfang Database were systematically searched for all relevant clinical trials until September 2023. References were explored to identify the relevant articles. Meta-analysis was carried out for the retrieved studies using RevMan5.4.1 software, and the risk ratio, mean difference and 95% confidence interval were expressed. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The main outcomes of this meta-analysis were stone-free rate (SFR), perioperative outcomes and intraoperative or postoperative complications. RESULTS: Thirteen studies, including 1394 patients, were included. According to the results of pooled analysis, TFL was associated with significantly higher stone-free rate (SFR) [0.52, 95% CI (0.32, 0.85), P = 0.009], shorter operation time [-5.47, 95% CI (-8.86, -2.08), P = 0.002], and less stone migration [0.17, 95% CI (0.06, 0.50), P = 0.001]. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the laser time, duration of hospital stay, drop of hemoglobin level, total energy, postoperative ureteral stenting, the incidence of intraoperative complications or postoperative complications between TFL and Ho: YAGs. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study demonstrated several advantages of TFL in terms of higher SFR, shorter operative time and less stone migration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of this systematic review was listed in PROSPERO ( www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO ) (Protocol number: CRD42022362550).

Urologists' opinion on treating asymptomatic stones: Would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Survey from European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Endourology and Urolithiasis working party.

Background/aim: Management of asymptomatic kidney stones is an ongoing debate with follow-up and treatment guidelines based on low-level evidence. Our aim was to evaluate current management of asymptomatic urinary stones. Materials and methods: A 70-question survey was designed in collaboration with European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Section of Uro-Technology and Section of Urolithiasis groups and distributed. Responders filled out hypothetical scenarios from 2 perspectives, either as treating physicians, or as patients themselves. Results: A total of 212 (40.01%) responses were obtained. Median responder age was 39 years. 75% of responders were interested in "urolithiasis". 82.5% had never experienced a renal colic, 89.6% had never undergone urolithiasis treatment.Overall, as the kidney stone scenarios got more complicated, the invasiveness of the treatment preference increased. As "the physician", responders preferred the conservative option in all situations more than they would choose as "the patient". For ureteral stones, conservative approach was most preferred for small stones and ureteroscopy became more preferred as the stone size increased.For smaller kidney stones, the most preferred follow-up schedule was 4-6 monthly, whereas for larger and complicated stones it was 0-3 monthly from both perspectives respectively. For all ureteral stone scenarios, 0-4 weekly follow-up was mostly preferred.Interestingly, having had a renal colic was an independent predictor of an interventional approach, whereas having had an intervention was an independent predictor of a conservative approach. Conclusion: Current treatment and follow-up patterns of asymptomatic urinary stones are in agreement with international guidelines on symptomatic stones.In most of the urolithiasis situations urologists chose a conservative approach for their patients compared to what they would prefer for themselves. Conversely, urologists, in the scenarios as "the patient", would like to have a more frequent follow-up schedule for their stones compared to how they would follow-up their patients.

[Phytoprophylaxis of complications after extracorporeal lithotrips].

AIM: To evaluate the efficiency of the drug phytolysin (capsules) in the prevention of complications after extracorporeal lithotripsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 15 patients diagnosed with urolithiasis and chronic pyelonephritis in the latent phase were treated. The predominant localization of radiopaque stones no larger than 20 mm in size was the collecting system. The piezoelectric lithotripsy (1-2 sessions) was performed, followed by the administration of the herbal drug Phytolysin in the dosage form of a capsule. The follow-up was carried out after 14- and 30-days using laboratory, ultrasound and x-ray methods. RESULTS: In the postoperative period, there were no cases of the pyelonephritis, which may result from a short-term disturbance of the upper urinary tract urodynamics due to the passage of stone fragments. The antibacterial, antispasmodic, diuretic and anti-inflammatory effects of Phytolysin ensured positive changes in laboratory and bacteriological tests, contributed to the prevention of postoperative complications after extracorporeal lithotripsy (renal colic, pyelonephritis), and contributed to maintaining renal blood flow within normal limits and significantly reduced the time to stone-free status. CONCLUSIONS: Our results justify the feasibility of using phytolysin in capsules in patients with urolithiasis after extracorporeal lithotripsy. The dosage form in capsules eliminates the undesirable effects associated with the specific smell and taste, that patients noted when using phytolysin in the form of a paste.

Patient's preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) in surgical specialties was demonstrated to diminish decisional regret, decisional anxiety and decisional conflict. Urolithiasis guidelines do not explicit patient preference to choose treatment. The aim of this review article was to perform a systematic evaluation of published evidence regarding SDM in urinary stone treatment. METHODS: A systematic review in accordance PRISMA checklist was conducted using the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated stone treatment preferences. Reviews, editorials, case reports and video abstracts were excluded. ROBUST checklist was used to assess quality of the studies. RESULTS: 188 articles were obtained. After applying the predefined selection criteria, seven articles were included for final analysis. Six out of seven studies were questionnaires that propose clinical scenarios and treatment alternatives. The last study was a patient preference trial. A general trend among included studies showed a patient preference towards the least invasive option (SWL over URS). The main reasons to choose one treatment over the other were stone-free rates, risk of complications and invasiveness. DISCUSSION: This review provides an overview of the patients' preferences towards stone treatment in small- and medium-sized stones. There was a clear preference towards the least invasive management strategy. The main reason was less invasiveness. This is opposed to the global trends of performing more ureteroscopies and less SWL. Physicians played a pivotal role in counselling patients. SDM should be encouraged and improved. The main limitation of this study is the characteristics of the included studies.

Complication rate after pediatric shock wave lithotripsy according to Clavien-Dindo grading system: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.

PURPOSE: Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is a minimally invasive technique utilized for renal and ureteric stones in children. Despite being considered safe, certain complications have been recorded. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to provide a pooled analysis of Clavien-Dindo graded complications after SWL in children. METHODS: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, were screened from inception to 12/02/2022 by two authors independently. Only randomized controlled trials providing Clavien-Dindo classification or relevant clinical information were considered eligible. Overall complications were calculated using the aggregate number of each complication divided by the total number of patients in studies with data. RESULTS: Pooled analysis revealed that from children treated with SWL, 27.7% [95% CI 13.1-49.4] suffered Clavien I complications, 4.9% [95% CI 3.1-7.6] Clavien II complications, 2.7% [95% CI 1.6-4.7] Clavien III complications, 2.3% [95% CI 1.3-4] Clavien IV complications, while no Clavien V complications were recorded. In total, 28.1% [95% CI 15.6-45.3] of children suffered minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II), while 3% [95% CI 1.8-5] major complications (Clavien-Dindo III-V). Pooled analysis revealed that 10.7% [95% CI 3.2-30.1] of patients suffered macroscopic hematuria, 7.3% [95% CI 2.1-22.7] pain, 5.5% [95% CI 3.3-9] steinstrasse, 5.3% [95% CI 3-9.3] fever, 2.2% [95% CI 0.8-5.6] sepsis, 1.1% [95% CI 0.3-3.7] urinoma, 1% [95% CI 0.4-2.7] symptomatic hematoma and 1% [95% CI 0.3-2.7] asymptomatic hematoma. Need for re-treatment was 42.6% [95% CI 31.4-54.7] and need for auxiliary procedures was 11.8% [95% CI 8.5-16.1]. CONCLUSION: SWL is an irreplaceable tool for treating urolithiasis in children. Although a minimally invasive technique, parents and children should be adequately informed about the risk of minor/major complications.

Imaging urolithiasis: complications and interventions in children.

Urolithiasis affects people in all age groups, but over the last decades there has been an increasing incidence in children. Typical symptoms include abdominal or flank pain with haematuria; in acute cases dysuria, fever or vomiting also occur. Ultrasound is considered the modality of choice in paediatric urolithiasis because it can be used to identify most clinically relevant stones. Complementary imaging modalities such as conventional radiographs or non-contrast computed tomography should be limited to specific clinical situations. Management of kidney stones includes dietary, pharmacological and urological interventions, depending on stone size, location or type, and the child's condition. With a very high incidence of underlying metabolic abnormalities and significant recurrence rates in paediatric urolithiasis, thorough metabolic evaluation and follow-up examination studies are of utmost importance.

Urolithiasis: History, epidemiology, aetiologic factors and management.

Urolithiasis is defined as a disease diagnosed by the presence of one or more stones in the urinary tract. It is one of the oldest and most widespread diseases known to man, their discovery and characterisation chronology began with the civilisation's history. This pathology has a multifactorial aetiology, very frequent worldwide with geographic and racial variation, their prevalence is increasing in lockstep with socioeconomic development. In fact, this disorder affects between 2 and 20% of the population, with an approximate recurrence rate of 30% to 50% in 5 years. Furthermore, calciumtype stones, which are composed of calcium oxalate (CaOx) alone or a mixture of CaOx and calcium phosphate are the most common, accounting for more than 80% of cases. The medical management of urolithiasis is done by medical treatments and/or by surgical intervention for the stones extraction by the techniques such as extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and open surgery. However, various therapies, including thiazide diuretics and alkaline citrate, are used in an attempt to prevent stones recurrence induced by hypercalciuria and hyperoxaluria, but the scientific evidence for their effectiveness is less convincing. On the other hand, endoscopic and ESWL methods have revolutionised the treatment of urinary lithiasis, but these costly methods, can cause acute kidney injury and decreased renal function, in addition, do not prevent the probability of new stone formation. The deepening of our knowledge on all points relating to this disease is a priority for specialists in order to find adequate solutions for this disease. This review provides an overview of urolithiasis, its history, epidemiology, clinical manifestation, diagnosis and treatment methods.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Diagnosis.

The choice of imaging modality is guided by the clinical presentation and the context (acute or not). Although ultrasound is safe (no radiation) and easily available, non-contrast-enhanced CT has become the gold standard in the diagnostic strategy for patients with acute flank pain because of its sensitivity (93.1%) and specificity (96.6%). It also allows determining the stone size, volume and density, visualizing their internal structure, and assessing their distance from the skin and the adjacent anatomy. All these parameters can influence the stone management and the choice of intervention modality. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendations method (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the issue was considered in the EAU recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Postural therapy.

Postural therapy is a postural procedure to fight against the gravity phenomenon responsible for the non-elimination of lower calyceal stones. It allows improving or accelerating their expulsion and it increases the stone-free rate. This procedure associates forced diuresis, postural inversion, and lumbar percussion. It allows a 50% improvement and an acceleration of fragment elimination. Despite its positive impact, postural therapy remains under-used. These are the first practical recommendations on postural therapy. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022] and whether they were adaptable to the French context.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Epidemiology, stone analysis and composition.

The incidence of urinary lithiasis is rising steadily in industrialized countries, and its prevalence in the general population of France is estimated at 10%. Renal colic accounts for 1-2% of emergency department consultations. At a time when the new LASER stone fragmentation techniques available to urologists will lead to ever finer in situ pulverization of stones, the exact identification of the compounds that form the stone is essential for etiological diagnosis. Constitutional analysis by infrared spectrophotometry or X-ray diffraction is therefore recommended, to be complemented by morphological typing of the calculi. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations have been drawn up using two methods: the Recommendation for Clinical Practice (RPC) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not the issue was considered in the EAU recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) [EAU 2022] and their adaptability to the French context.