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.

Outcomes of Flexible Ureteroscopy vs Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Stones in Pediatric Patients: A European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine which treatment between flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy has a better stone-free rate in pediatric patients (<18 years) with renal or proximal ureteric stones (<2 cm). Subanalysis for all outcomes for randomized controlled trials only. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified studies (randomized clinical trials and prospective comparative nonrandomized studies) published until August 2022 reporting surgical outcomes of pediatrics patients undergoing flexible ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy with renal or proximal ureteric stones <2 cm (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022378790). Only randomized controlled trials were considered for meta-analysis. Stone-free rate, operative time, and complications were analyzed. Analysis was performed in R. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies identified, of which 3 were randomized clinical trials and 4 had data on renal stones. A total of 669 patients were analyzed. Mean age ranged from 4.4 to 12.4 years. The shock wave lithotripsy group presented a range of stone-free rate between 21 and 90% while the flexible ureteroscopy group presented a range of stone-free rates between 37% and 97%. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials only (n=302) demonstrated significantly higher stone-free rate in flexible ureteroscopy vs shock wave lithotripsy (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.04-1.33, P = 0.01), operative time (mean difference = +16.4 minutes, 95% CI: 7.3-25.5, P < 0.01) and hospital stay (mean difference = +0.25 days, 95% CI: 0.14-0.36, P < 0.001). But no difference in fluoroscopy exposure time (mean difference = -21.0 seconds, 95% CI: -42.6 to 0.56, P = 0.07), Clavien I-II (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: 0.71-2.12, P = 0.45) or Clavien III-V complications (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.32-3.42, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Flexible ureteroscopy has a significantly higher stone-free rate than shock wave lithotripsy, with no difference in complication rate or fluoroscopy exposure time, and significantly higher operative times and hospital stay. However, the current evidence base for this is weak and further randomized trials are needed.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes for Fluoroscopic and Fluoroscopy-free Endourological Procedures: A Systematic Review on Behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: Endourological procedures frequently require fluoroscopic guidance, which results in harmful radiation exposure to patients and staff. One clinician-controlled method for decreasing exposure to ionising radiation in patients with urolithiasis is to avoid the use of intraoperative fluoroscopy during stone intervention procedures. OBJECTIVE: To comparatively assess the benefits and risks of "fluoroscopy-free" and fluoroscopic endourological interventions in patients with urolithiasis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature from 1970 to 2022 was performed using the MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane controlled trials databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. Primary outcomes assessed were complications and the stone-free rate (SFR). Studies reporting data on ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) were eligible for inclusion. Secondary outcomes were operative duration, hospital length of stay, conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure, and requirement for an auxiliary procedure to achieve stone clearance. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 24 studies (12 randomised and 12 observational) out of 834 abstracts screened were eligible for analysis. There were 4564 patients with urolithiasis in total, of whom 2309 underwent a fluoroscopy-free procedure and 2255 underwent a comparative fluoroscopic procedure for treatment of urolithiasis. Pooled analysis of all procedures revealed no significant difference between the groups in SFR (p = 0.84), operative duration (p = 0.11), or length of stay (p = 0.13). Complication rates were significantly higher in the fluoroscopy group (p = 0.009). The incidence of conversion from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic procedure was 2.84%. Similar results were noted in subanalyses for ureteroscopy (n = 2647) and PCNL (n = 1917). When only randomised studies were analysed (n = 12), the overall complication rate was significantly in the fluoroscopy group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For carefully selected patients with urolithiasis, fluoroscopy-free and fluoroscopic endourological procedures have comparable stone-free and complication rates when performed by experienced urologists. In addition, the conversion rate from a fluoroscopy-free to a fluoroscopic endourological procedure is low at 2.84%. These findings are important for clinicians and patients, as the detrimental health effects of ionising radiation are negated with fluoroscopy-free procedures. PATIENT SUMMARY: We compared treatments for kidney stones with and without the use of radiation. We found that kidney stone procedures without the use of radiation can be safely performed by experienced urologists in patients with normal kidney anatomy. These findings are important, as they indicate that the harmful effects of radiation can be avoided during kidney stone surgery.

Duration of Follow-up and Timing of Discharge from Imaging Follow-up, in Adult Patients with Urolithiasis After Surgical or Medical Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel on Urolithiasis.

CONTEXT: No algorithm exists for structured follow-up of urolithiasis patients. OBJECTIVE: To provide a discharge time point during follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review of PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, and reference lists according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Fifty studies were eligible. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From a pooled analysis of 5467 stone-free patients, we estimated that for a safety margin of 80% for remaining stone free, patients should be followed up using imaging, for at least 2 yr (radiopaque stones) or 3 yr (radiolucent stones) before being discharged. Patients should be discharged after 5 yr of no recurrence with a safety margin of 90%. Regarding residual disease, patients with fragments ≤4 mm could be offered surveillance up to 4 yr since intervention rates range between 17% and 29%, disease progression between 9% and 34%, and spontaneous passage between 21% and 34% at 49 mo. Patients with larger residual fragments should be offered further definitive intervention since intervention rates are high (24-100%). Insufficient data exist for high-risk patients, but the current literature dictates that patients who are adherent to targeted medical treatment seem to experience less stone growth or regrowth of residual fragments, and may be discharged after 36-48 mo of nonprogressive disease on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that stone-free patients with radiopaque or radiolucent stones should be followed up to 2 or 3 yr, respectively. In patients with residual fragments ≤4 mm, surveillance or intervention can be advised according to patient preferences and characteristics, while for those with larger residual fragments, reintervention should be scheduled. PATIENT SUMMARY: Here, we review the literature regarding follow-up of urolithiasis patients. Patients who have no stones after treatment should be seen up to 2-3 yr, those with large fragments should be reoperated, and those with small fragments could be offered surveillance with imaging.

International Alliance of Urolithiasis Guideline on Shockwave Lithotripsy.

Different international associations have proposed their own guidelines on urolithiasis. However, the focus is primarily on an overview of the principles of urolithiasis management rather than step-by-step technical details for the procedure. The International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) is releasing a series of guidelines on the management of urolithiasis. The current guideline on shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is the third in the IAU guidelines series and provides a clinical framework for urologists and technicians performing SWL. A total of 49 recommendations are summarized and graded, covering the following aspects: indications and contraindications; preoperative patient evaluation; preoperative medication; prestenting; intraoperative analgesia or anesthesia; intraoperative position; stone localization and monitoring; machine and energy settings; intraoperative lithotripsy strategies; auxiliary therapy following SWL; evaluation of stone clearance; complications; and quality of life. The recommendations, tips, and tricks regarding SWL procedures summarized here provide important and necessary guidance for urologists along with technicians performing SWL. PATIENT SUMMARY: For kidney and urinary stones of less than 20 mm in size, shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is an approach in which the stone is treated with shockwaves applied to the skin, without the need for surgery. Our recommendations on technical aspects of the procedure provide guidance for urologists and technicians performing SWL.

Best Practice in Interventional Management of Urolithiasis: An Update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022.

PURPOSE: The European Association of Urology (EAU) has updated its guidelines on clinical best practice in urolithiasis for 2021. We therefore aimed to present a summary of best clinical practice in surgical intervention for patients with upper tract urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The panel performed a comprehensive literature review of novel data up to May 2021. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating was given for each recommendation, graded using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. RESULTS: The choice of surgical intervention depends on stone characteristics, patient anatomy, comorbidities, and choice. For shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), the optimal shock frequency is 1.0-1.5 Hz. For ureteroscopy (URS), a postoperative stent is not needed in uncomplicated cases. Flexible URS is an alternative if percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or SWL is contraindicated, even for stones >2 cm. For PCNL, prone and supine approaches are equally safe. For uncomplicated PCNL cases, a nephrostomy tube after PCNL is not necessary. Radiation exposure for endourological procedures should follow the as low as reasonably achievable principles. CONCLUSIONS: This is a summary of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines on best clinical practice in interventional management of urolithiasis. The full guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis. PATIENT SUMMARY: The European Association of Urology has produced guidelines on the best management of kidney stones, which are summarised in this paper. Kidney stone disease is a common condition; computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to diagnose it. The guidelines aim to decrease radiation exposure to patients by minimising the use of x-rays and CT scans. We detail specific advice around the common operations for kidney stones.

Best practice in interventional management of urolithiasis: an update from the European Association of Urology guidelines panel for urolithiasis 2022

The European Association of Urology (EAU) has updated its guidelines on clinical best practice in urolithiasis for 2021. We therefore aimed to present a summary of best clinical practice in surgical intervention for patients with upper tract urolithiasis. The panel performed a comprehensive literature review of novel data up to May 2021. The guidelines were updated and a strength rating was given for each recommendation, graded using the modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations methodology. The choice of surgical intervention depends on stone characteristics, patient anatomy, comorbidities, and choice. For shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), the optimal shock frequency is 1.0-1.5 Hz. For ureteroscopy (URS), a postoperative stent is not needed in uncomplicated cases. Flexible URS is an alternative if percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or SWL is contraindicated, even for stones >2 cm. For PCNL, prone and supine approaches are equally safe. For uncomplicated PCNL cases, a nephrostomy tube after PCNL is not necessary. Radiation exposure for endourological procedures should follow the as low as reasonably achievable principles. This is a summary of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines on best clinical practice in interventional management of urolithiasis. The full guideline is available at https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis. The European Association of Urology has produced guidelines on the best management of kidney stones, which are summarised in this paper. Kidney stone disease is a common condition; computed tomography (CT) is increasingly used to diagnose it. The guidelines aim to decrease radiation exposure to patients by minimising the use of x-rays and CT scans. We detail specific advice around the common operations for kidney stones.

Classification and standardized reporting of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL): International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU) Consensus Statements.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to reach a consensus in the classification and standardized reporting for the different types of PCNLs. METHODS: The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology was used to reach a consensus. Thirty-two statements were formulated reviewing the literature on guidelines and consensus on PCNLs, and included procedure specific details, outcome measurements and a classification for PCNLs. Experts were invited to two rounds of input, the first enabled independent modifications of the proposed statements and provided the option to add statements. The second round facilitated scoring of all statements. Each statement was discussed in the third round to decide which statements to include. Any suggestion or disagreement was debated and discussed to reach a consensual agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-five recommendations were identified to provide standardized reporting of procedure and outcomes. Consensual scoring above 80% were strongly agreed upon by the panel. The top treatment related outcomes were size of sheath used (99.1%) and position for PCNL (93.5%). The highest ranked Outcome Measures included definition of postoperative hospital length of stay (94.4%) and estimated blood loss (93.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements will be useful to clarify operative technique, in the design of clinical trials and standardized reporting, and presentation of results to compare outcomes of different types of PCNLs.

Imaging modalities and treatment of paediatric upper tract urolithiasis: A systematic review and update on behalf of the EAU urolithiasis guidelines panel.

BACKGROUND: Prompt diagnosis and treatment of paediatric urolithiasis are required to avoid long term sequelae of renal damage. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature regarding the diagnostic imaging modalities and treatment approaches for paediatric urolithiasis. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus and Web of Science were systematically searched from January 1980-January 2019. 76 full-text articles were included. RESULTS: Ultrasound and Kidney-Ureter-Bladder radiography are the baseline diagnostic examinations. Non-contrast Computed Tomography (CT) is the second line choice with high sensitivity (97-100%) and specificity (96-100%). Magnetic Resonance Urography accounts only for 2% of pediatric stone imaging studies. Expectant management for single, asymptomatic lower pole renal stones is an acceptable initial approach, especially in patients with non-struvite, non-cystine stones<7 mm. Limited studies exist on medical expulsive therapy as off-label treatment. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) is the first-line treatment with overall stone free rates (SFRs) of 70-90%, retreatment rates 4-50% and complication rates up to 15%. Semi-rigid ureteroscopy is effective with SFRs of 81-98%, re-treatment rates of 6.3-10% and complication rates of 1.9-23%. Flexible ureteroscopy has shown SFRs of 76-100%, retreatment rates of 0-19% and complication rates of 0-28%. SFRs after first and second-look percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) are 70.1-97.3% and 84.6-97.5%, respectively with an overall complication rate of 20%. Open surgery is seldom used, while laparoscopy is effective for stones refractory to SWL and PNL. Limited data exist for robot-assisted management. CONCLUSIONS: In the initial assessment of paediatric urolithiasis, US is recommended as first imaging modality, while non-contrast CT is the second option. SWL is recommended as first line treatment for renal stones <20 mm and for ureteral stones<10 mm. Ureteroscopy is a feasible alternative both for ureteral stones not amenable to SWL as well as for renal stones <20 mm (using flexible). PNL is recommended for renal stones >20 mm.

Treatment of Bladder Stones in Adults and Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Behalf of the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guideline Panel.

CONTEXT: Bladder stones (BS) constitute 5% of urinary stones. Currently, there is no systematic review of their treatment. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy (primary outcome: stone-free rate [SFR]) and morbidity of BS treatments. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the European Association of Urology Guidelines Office. Database searches (1970-2019) were screened, abstracted, and assessed for risk of bias for comparative randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomised studies (NRSs) with ≥10 patients per group. Quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 2742 abstracts and 59 full-text articles were assessed, and 25 studies (2340 patients) were included. In adults, one RCT found a lower SFR following shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) than transurethral cystolithotripsy (TUCL; risk ratio 0.88, p=0.03; low QoE). Four RCTs compared TUCL versus percutaneous cystolithotripsy (PCCL): meta-analyses demonstrated no difference in SFR, but hospital stay (mean difference [MD] 0.82d, p<0.00001) and procedure duration (MD 9.83min, p<0.00001) favoured TUCL (moderate QoE). Four NRSs comparing open cystolithotomy (CL) versus TUCL or PCCL found no difference in SFR; hospital stay and procedure duration favoured endoscopic surgery (very low QoE). Four RCTs compared TUCL using a nephroscope versus a cystoscope: meta-analyses demonstrated no difference in SFR; procedure duration favoured the use of a nephroscope (MD 22.74min, p<0.00001; moderate QoE). In children, one NRS showed a lower SFR following SWL than TUCL or CL. Two NRSs comparing CL versus TUCL/PCCL found similar SFRs; catheterisation time and hospital stay favoured endoscopic treatments. One RCT comparing laser versus pneumatic TUCL found no difference in SFR. One large NRS comparing CL techniques found a shorter hospital stay after tubeless CL in selected cases; QoE was very low. CONCLUSIONS: Current available evidence indicates that TUCL is the intervention of choice for BSs in adults and children, where feasible. Further high-quality research on the topic is required. PATIENT SUMMARY: We examined the literature to determine the most effective and least harmful procedures for bladder stones in adults and children. The results suggest that endoscopic surgery is equally effective as open surgery. It is unclear whether stone size affects outcomes. Shock wave lithotripsy appears to be less effective. Endoscopic treatments appear to have shorter catheterisation time and convalescence compared with open surgery in adults and children. Transurethral surgery, where feasible, appears to have a shorter hospital stay than percutaneous surgery. Further research is required to clarify the efficacy of minimally invasive treatments for larger stones and in young children.

What are the Benefits and Harms of Ureteroscopy Compared with Shock-wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Upper Ureteral Stones? A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopy (URS), with or without intracorporeal lithotripsy, are the most common treatments for upper ureteric stones. With advances in technology, it is unclear which treatment is most effective and/or safest. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review literature reporting benefits and harms of SWL and URS in the management of upper ureteric stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library were searched from January 2000 to November 2014. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and nonrandomised studies comparing any subtype or variation of URS and SWL were included. The primary benefit outcome was stone-free rate (SFR). The primary harm outcome was complications. Secondary outcomes included retreatment rate, need for secondary, and/or adjunctive procedures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess RCTs, and an extended version was used to assess nonrandomised studies. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Five thousand-three hundred and eighty abstracts and 387 full-text articles were screened. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria; 19 (39.6%) were RCTs. No studies on children met inclusion criteria. URS and SWL were compared in 22 studies (4 RCTs, 1 quasi-randomised controlled trial, and 17 nonrandomised studies). Meta-analyses were inappropriate due to data heterogeneity. SFR favoured URS in 9/22 studies. Retreatment rates were higher for SWL compared with URS in all studies but one. Longer hospital stay and adjunctive procedures (most commonly the insertion of a JJ stent) were more common when primary treatment was URS. Complications were reported in 11 out of 22 studies. In eight studies, it was possible to report this as a Clavien-Dindo Grade. Higher complication rates across all grades were reported for URS compared with SWL. For intragroup (intra-SWL and intra-URS) comparative studies, 25 met the inclusion criteria. These studies varied greatly in outcomes measured with data being heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SWL, URS was associated with a significantly greater SFR up to 4 wk but the difference was not significant at 3 mo in the included studies. URS was associated with fewer retreatments and need for secondary procedures, but with a higher need for adjunctive procedures, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stay. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this paper, the relative benefits and harms of the two most commonly offered treatment options for urinary stones located in the upper ureter were reviewed. We found that both treatments are safe and effective options that should be offered based on individual patient circumstances and preferences.

Tract Sizes in Miniaturized Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy: A Systematic Review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.

CONTEXT: Miniaturized instruments for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), utilizing tracts sized ≤22 Fr, have been developed in an effort to reduce the morbidity and increase the efficiency of stone removal compared with standard PNL (>22 Fr). OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed all available evidence on the efficacy and safety of miniaturized PNL for removing renal calculi. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Since it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis, the data were summarized in a narrative synthesis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 2945 abstracts, 18 studies were included (two randomized controlled trials [RCTs], six nonrandomized comparative studies, and 10 case series). Thirteen studies were full-text articles and five were only available as congress abstracts. The size of tracts used in miniaturized procedures ranged from 22 Fr to 4.8 Fr. The largest mean stone size treated using small instruments was 980mm2. Stone-free rates were comparable in miniaturized and standard PNL procedures. Procedures performed with small instruments tended to be associated with significantly lower blood loss, while the procedure duration tended to be significantly longer. Other complications were not notably different between PNL types. Study designs and populations were heterogeneous. Study limitations included selection and outcome reporting bias, as well as a lack of information on relevant confounding factors. CONCLUSIONS: The studies suggest that miniaturized PNL is at least as efficacious and safe as standard PNL for the removal of renal calculi. However, the quality of the evidence was poor, drawn mainly from small studies, the majority of which were single-arm case series, and only two of which were RCTs. Furthermore, the tract sizes used and types of stones treated were heterogeneous. Hence, the risks of bias and confounding were high, highlighting the need for more reliable data from RCTs. PATIENT SUMMARY: Removing kidney stones via percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) using smaller sized instruments (mini-PNL) appears to be as effective and safe as using larger (traditional) instruments, but more clinical research is needed.

EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis.

CONTEXT: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) has become the first choice for detection of ureteral calculi. Conservative observational management of renal stones is possible, although the availability of minimally invasive treatment often leads to active treatment. Acute renal colic due to ureteral stone obstruction is an emergency that requires immediate pain management. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones can support spontaneous passage in the absence of complicating factors. These guidelines summarise current recommendations for imaging, pain management, conservative treatment, and MET for renal and ureteral stones. Oral chemolysis is an option for uric acid stones. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for diagnosis and conservative and medical treatment of urolithiasis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases were searched for studies on imaging, pain management, observation, and MET for urolithiasis, with particular attention to the level of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Most patients with urolithiasis present with typical colic symptoms, but stones in the renal calices remain asymptomatic. Routine evaluation includes ultrasound imaging as the first-line modality. In acute disease, low-dose CT is the method of choice. Ureteral stones <6mm can pass spontaneously in well-controlled patients. Sufficient pain management is mandatory in acute renal colic. MET, usually with α-receptor antagonists, facilitates stone passage and reduces the need for analgesia. Contrast imaging is advised for accurate determination of the renal anatomy. Asymptomatic calyceal stones may be observed via active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis, observational management, and medical treatment of urinary calculi are routine measures. Diagnosis is rapid using low-dose CT. However, radiation exposure is a limitation. Active treatment might not be necessary, especially for stones in the lower pole. MET is recommended to support spontaneous stone expulsion. PATIENT SUMMARY: For stones in the lower pole of the kidney, treatment may be postponed if there are no complaints. Pharmacological treatment may promote spontaneous stone passage.

EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis.

CONTEXT: Management of urinary stones is a major issue for most urologists. Treatment modalities are minimally invasive and include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Technological advances and changing treatment patterns have had an impact on current treatment recommendations, which have clearly shifted towards endourologic procedures. These guidelines describe recent recommendations on treatment indications and the choice of modality for ureteral and renal calculi. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for treatment of urinary stone disease. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases were searched to identify studies on interventional treatment of urolithiasis, with special attention to the level of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Treatment decisions are made individually according to stone size, location, and (if known) composition, as well as patient preference and local expertise. Treatment recommendations have shifted to endourologic procedures such as URS and PNL, and SWL has lost its place as the first-line modality for many indications despite its proven efficacy. Open and laparoscopic techniques are restricted to limited indications. Best clinical practice standards have been established for all treatments, making all options minimally invasive with low complication rates. CONCLUSION: Active treatment of urolithiasis is currently a minimally invasive intervention, with preference for endourologic techniques. PATIENT SUMMARY: For active removal of stones from the kidney or ureter, technological advances have made it possible to use less invasive surgical techniques. These interventions are safe and are generally associated with shorter recovery times and less discomfort for the patient.

Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines.

CONTEXT: An optimum metabolic evaluation strategy for urinary stone patients has not been clearly defined. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimum strategy for metabolic stone evaluation and management to prevent recurrent urinary stones. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Several databases were searched to identify studies on the metabolic evaluation and prevention of stone recurrence in urolithiasis patients. Special interest was given to the level of evidence in the existing literature. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Reliable stone analysis and basic metabolic evaluation are highly recommended in all patients after stone passage (grade A). Every patient should be assigned to a low- or high-risk group for stone formation. It is highly recommended that low-risk stone formers follow general fluid and nutritional intake guidelines, as well as lifestyle-related preventative measures to reduce stone recurrences (grade A). High-risk stone formers should undergo specific metabolic evaluation with 24-h urine collection (grade A). More specifically, there is strong evidence to recommend pharmacological treatment of calcium oxalate stones in patients with specific abnormalities in urine composition (grades A and B). Treatment of calcium phosphate stones using thiazides is only highly recommended when hypercalciuria is present (grade A). In the presence of renal tubular acidosis (RTA), potassium citrate and/or thiazide are highly recommended based on the relative urinary risk factor (grade A or B). Recommendations for therapeutic measures for the remaining stone types are based on low evidence (grade C or B following panel consensus). Diagnostic and therapeutic algorithms are presented for all stone types based on the best level of existing evidence. CONCLUSION: Metabolic stone evaluation is highly recommended to prevent stone recurrences. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at how patients with urolithiasis should be evaluated and treated in order to prevent new stone formation. Stone type determination and specific blood and urine analysis are needed to guide patient treatment.