Search

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., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We aimed to accurately determine ureteral stricture (US) rates following urolithiasis treatments and their related risk factors., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines using databases from inception to November 2023. Studies were deemed eligible for analysis if they included ≥ 18 years old patients with urinary lithiasis (Patients) who were subjected to endoscopic treatment (Intervention) with ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), or shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (Comparator) to assess the incidence of US (Outcome) in prospective and retrospective studies (Study design)., Results: A total of 43 studies were included. The pooled US rate was 1.3% post-SWL and 2.1% post-PCNL. The pooled rate of US post-URS was 1.9% but raised to 2.7% considering the last five years' studies and 4.9% if the stone was impacted. Moreover, the pooled US rate differed if follow-ups were under or over six months. Patients with proximal ureteral stone, preoperative hydronephrosis, intraoperative ureteral perforation, and impacted stones showed higher US risk post-endoscopic intervention with odds ratio of 1.6 (P = 0.05), 2.6 (P = 0.009), 7.1 (P < 0.001), and 7.47 (P = 0.003), respectively., Conclusions: The overall US rate ranges from 0.3 to 4.9%, with an increasing trend in the last few years. It is influenced by type of treatment, stone location and impaction, preoperative hydronephrosis and intraoperative perforation. Future standardized reporting and prospective and more extended follow-up studies might contribute to a better understanding of US risks related to calculi treatment., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: Comparisons of ureteroscopy (URS), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis considering long-term follow-up are rare. We aimed to analyze re-intervention rates, costs and sick leave days of URS, SWL and PCNL patients within 7 years., Methods: This retrospective cohort study was based on German health insurance claims data. We included 54,609 urolithiasis patients incidentally treated in 2008-2010. We investigated time to re-intervention, number of sick leave days and healthcare costs. We applied negative binomial, extended Cox regression and gamma models., Results: 54% were incidentally treated with URS, 40% with SWL and 6% with PCNL. 15% of URS, 26% of SWL and 23% of PCNL patients were re-treated within 7 years. Time to re-intervention was significantly lower for PCNL (955 days) and SWL (937 days) than URS (1078 days) patients. Costs for incident treatment were significantly higher for PCNL (2760€) and lower for SWL (1342€) than URS (1334€) patients. Yet, total costs including re-interventions were significantly higher for PCNL (5783€) and SWL (3240€) than URS (2979€) patients. Total number of sick leave days was increased for PCNL (13.0 days) and SWL (10.1 days) compared to URS (6.8 days) patients., Conclusion: This study describes outcomes after use of different intervention options for urolithiasis. URS patients showed longest time free of re-interventions and lowest number of sick leave days. Although SWL patients initially had lower costs, URS patients had lower costs in the long run. PCNL patients showed high costs and sick leave days., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) has become the preferred treatment modality for nephrolithiasis. However, because of ongoing uncertainties regarding the optimal perioperative management, operative technique, and postoperative follow-up, as well as a lack of standardization for outcome reporting, consensus is needed to achieve more uniform clinical practice worldwide., Objective: To develop recommendations for RIRS on the basis of existing data and expert consensus., Design, Setting, and Participants: A protocol-driven, three-phase study was conducted by the European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) and the International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU). The process included: (1) a nonsystematic review of the literature to define domains for discussion; (2) a two-round modified Delphi survey involving experts in this field; and (3) an additional group meeting and third-round survey involving 64 senior representative members to formulate the final conclusions., Outcome Measurements and Statistical Analysis: The results from each previous round were returned to the participants for re-evaluation of their decisions during the next round. The agreement threshold was set at 70%., Results and Limitations: The panel included 209 participants who developed 29 consensus statements on the following topics of interest: (1) perioperative infection management; (2) perioperative antithrombotic therapy; (3) fundamentals of the operative technique; and (4) standardized outcome reporting. Although this consensus can be considered as a useful reference for more clinically oriented daily practice, we also acknowledge that a higher level of evidence from further clinical trials is needed., Conclusions: The consensus statements aim to guide and standardize clinical practice and research on RIRS and to recommend standardized outcome reporting., Patient Summary: An international consensus on the best practice for minimally invasive surgery for kidney stones was organized and developed by two international societies. It is anticipated that this consensus will provide further guidance to urologists and may help to improve clinical outcomes for patients., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Comparisons of ureteroscopy (URS), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis considering long-term health and economic outcomes based on claims data are rare. Our aim was to analyze URS, SWL, and PCNL regarding complications within 30 days, re-intervention, healthcare costs, and sick leave days within 12 months, and to investigate inpatient and outpatient SWL treatment as the latter was introduced in Germany in 2011., Methods: This retrospective cohort study based on German health insurance claims data included 164,203 urolithiasis cases in 2008-2016. We investigated the number of complications within 30 days, as well as time to re-intervention, number of sick leave days and hospital and ambulatory health care costs within a 12-month follow-up period. We applied negative binomial, Cox proportional hazard, gamma and two-part models and adjusted for patient variables., Results: Compared to URS cases, SWL and PCNL had fewer 30-day complications, time to re-intervention within 12 months was decreased for SWL and PCNL, SWL and PCNL were correlated with a higher number of sick leave days, and SWL and particularly PCNL were associated with higher costs. SWL outpatients had fewer complications, re-interventions and lower costs than inpatients. This study was limited by the available information in claims data., Conclusion: URS cases showed benefits in terms of fewer re-interventions, fewer sick leave days, and lower healthcare costs. Only regarding complications, SWL was superior. This emphasizes URS as the most frequent treatment choice. Furthermore, SWL outpatients showed less costs, fewer complications, and re-interventions than inpatients., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The increase of medical knowledge and technical innovations together with the demographic change represent a challenge for the new conception of guidelines and clinical studies. The present S2k guidelines, which are exclusively concerned with kidney and ureteral stones, should support the treatment of urolithiasis in hospitals and private practices and provide information on urolithiasis for patients. Increasing interdisciplinary collaboration in stone treatment is also demonstrated in the number of professional and working groups participating in the update of the new guidelines. The present S2k guidelines emerged from a consensus process and demonstrate the current recommendations in step with actual practice. They provide decision-making guidance for diagnostics, treatment and metaphylactic measures based on expert opinions and available published fundamental evidence from the literature.

Background: Simulation-based training offers an acceptable adjunct to the traditional mentor-apprentice model in helping trainees to traverse the early stages of the learning curve for ureteroscopy and percutaneous renal surgery. In addition, nontechnical skills are increasingly important in preventing adverse events in the operating room, and simulation-based training can be used for training in such skills. Incorporation of simulation into formalised, standardised, and validated curricula offers an applicable method for training residents., Objective: To develop a curriculum for urolithiasis procedures incorporating technical and nontechnical skills training for implementation across Europe., Design, Setting, and Participants: An international panel of experts from EULIS, EUREP, ESU and ESUT was consulted in five stages. The study incorporated a mix of qualitative and quantitative data for collection and analysis. Responses were drawn out in (1) an opinion survey and (2) a curriculum development survey, which were discussed in (3) a focus group meeting. Group responses from this meeting were analysed for themes, which were discussed at (4) a focus group meeting, where consensus was reached among the group. Data analysis and integration at this stage were used to draft the curriculum., Results and Limitations: All group meetings were transcribed from the focus group discussion. Eight themes were generated, into which all data were categorised. These were: need for a training curriculum; curriculum objectives; curriculum structure; curriculum content; teaching platforms and tools; assessment and certification; validation and implementation; and global integration of the curriculum. A curriculum, including recommended simulators for use, was subsequently proposed., Conclusions: We propose a comprehensive curriculum for training in urolithiasis. Additional planning is required for full validation and implementation before it can be used to train residents., Patient Summary: Stone disease accounts for a major proportion of surgical interventions worldwide. We describe a consensus guideline for effective training of stone surgeons., (Copyright © 2017 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The treatment of urolithiasis is still one of the most frequent tasks in the daily urological practice. Driven by the technological developments, patient demands and also personal experiences of urologists, many interventional treatment options have been established. To identify the most suitable treatment option, it is of utmost importance to consider not only stone size and localization but also the individual situation of the patient and the published evidence, which despite all efforts often lags behind the technical and clinical reality.

Background: Urolithiasis is a widespread disease. Diagnostic imaging plays an important role in the evaluation and management of patients with suspected urolithiasis. Furthermore, modern imaging methods may provide information on stone location, size, fragility and composition aiding the urologist to determine the appropriate treatment modality., Purpose: Based on the current literature and guidelines, this review reports on the various new and established diagnostic imaging modalities., Results: Ultrasound should always be the initial imaging modality. Following ultrasound, noncontrast CT-principally using a low-dose protocol-is the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain and suspected urolithiasis. New imaging modalities like dual energy CT, Uro Dyna CT and digital tomosynthesis are currently under investigation but not yet part of daily clinical practice. Magnetic resonance imaging can be used to detect obstruction caused by urinary stones but is not a first-line imaging modality.

Every tenth German citizen will suffer from at least one urinary calculus during the lifetime. The diagnostics, treatment and follow-up treatment of urolithiasis are, therefore, part of the daily routine practice for all urologists in hospitals and private practices as well as in many other disciplines, such as general practitioners, internists, nephrologists and pediatricians. Although the diagnostics and therapy have experienced substantial alterations over the last 10 years, the possibilities of metabolic diagnostics and secondary prevention for patients at risk are, unfortunately and unjustly, in many places very poorly represented. The present S2k guidelines, which for the first time were established in an interdisciplinary consensus process, represent the current practical recommendations and, whenever possible, use tables and algorithms in order to facilitate easy reference in the routine daily work. Last but not least, this greatly simplifies the measures for metaphylaxis.

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., (Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Following its introduction in the 1980s extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the gold standard for therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. The research data published during the last decade suggest a paradigm shift to endourological techniques., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare whether the suggested loss of status for SWL corresponds with actual real-life treatment in Germany. A further aim was to assess the quality of SWL therapy in German hospitals., Materials and Methods: The board of the German Society for Shock Wave Lithotripsy (DGSWL) sent a questionnaire to 306 urological departments in Germany, which encompassed medical, technical and organizational topics in the therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. A total of 99 (33%) questionnaires were returned., Conclusion: With the exception of a few departments, non-invasive SWL still plays a major role in the treatment of urolithiasis and a loss of the gold standard status is not in sight. The performance of SWL in German hospitals is carried out at a high level of quality. To maintain and optimize this status a structured SWL training and adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed.

Introduction: Following its introduction in 1980, shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) rapidly emerged as the first-line treatment for the majority of patients with urolithiasis. Millions of SWL therapies have since been performed worldwide, and nowadays, SWL still remains to be the least invasive therapy modality for urinary stones. During the last three decades, SWL technology has advanced in terms of shock wave generation, focusing, patient coupling and stone localization. The implementation of multifunctional lithotripters has made SWL available to urology departments worldwide. Indications for SWL have evolved as well. Although endoscopic treatment techniques have improved significantly and seem to take the lead in stone therapy in the western countries due to high stone-free rates, SWL continues to be considered as the first-line therapy for the treatment of most intra-renal stones and many ureteral stones., Methods: This paper reviews the fundamentals of SWL physics to facilitate a better understanding about how a lithotripter works and should be best utilized., Results: Advances in lithotripsy technology such as shock wave generation and focusing, advances in stone localization (imaging), different energy source concepts and coupling modalities are presented. Furthermore adjuncts to improve the efficacy of SWL including different treatment strategies are reviewed., Conclusion: If urologists make use of a more comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology and physics of shock waves, much better results could be achieved in the future. This may lead to a renaissance and encourage SWL as first-line therapy for urolithiasis in times of rapid progress in endoscopic treatment modalities.

Urinary stone disease is relatively rare in children with an overall incidence of 1-2 %; however, it is often associated with metabolic abnormalities that may lead to recurrent stone formation. Stone analysis and subsequent metabolic evaluation is therefore mandatory for this high-risk group after the first stone event. The objectives of stone management in children should be complete stone clearance, prevention of stone recurrence, preservation of renal function, control of urinary tract infections, correction of anatomical abnormalities and correction of the underlying metabolic disorders. The full range of minimally invasive procedures is available if active stone removal is necessary. The majority of stones in children can be managed either with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy which has a higher efficacy in children than in adults, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, ureterorenoscopy or a combination of these modalities while open or laparoscopic surgery is limited to well-selected cases with underlying anatomical abnormalities.

The Academy Spring Forums held as part of the Southwest German Congress in Tübingen and the Congress of North Rhine-Westphalia in Aachen offer urologists in private practice and likewise hospital urologists a compact overview of new developments. This article summarizes the newest work on e.g. interventional therapy, uroliths, and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for benign prostatic hyperplasia and urolithiasis.

Context: The introduction of new lithotripters has increased problems associated with shock wave application. Recent studies concerning mechanisms of stone disintegration, shock wave focusing, coupling, and application have appeared that may address some of these problems., Objective: To present a consensus with respect to the physics and techniques used by urologists, physicists, and representatives of European lithotripter companies., Evidence Acquisition: We reviewed recent literature (PubMed, Embase, Medline) that focused on the physics of shock waves, theories of stone disintegration, and studies on optimising shock wave application. In addition, we used relevant information from a consensus meeting of the German Society of Shock Wave Lithotripsy., Evidence Synthesis: Besides established mechanisms describing initial fragmentation (tear and shear forces, spallation, cavitation, quasi-static squeezing), the model of dynamic squeezing offers new insight in stone comminution. Manufacturers have modified sources to either enlarge the focal zone or offer different focal sizes. The efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) can be increased by lowering the pulse rate to 60-80 shock waves/min and by ramping the shock wave energy. With the water cushion, the quality of coupling has become a critical factor that depends on the amount, viscosity, and temperature of the gel. Fluoroscopy time can be reduced by automated localisation or the use of optical and acoustic tracking systems. There is a trend towards larger focal zones and lower shock wave pressures., Conclusions: New theories for stone disintegration favour the use of shock wave sources with larger focal zones. Use of slower pulse rates, ramping strategies, and adequate coupling of the shock wave head can significantly increase the efficacy and safety of ESWL., (Copyright © 2011 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The incidence and prevalence of urolithiasis are increasing but clinicians also have the impression that gender and age distributions of stone formers are changing. Moreover, regional differences in stone occurrence and composition have been observed. We analyzed such trends based on a large series of urinary stone analyses., Materials and Methods: A total of 224,085 urinary stone analyses from 22 German centers were evaluated to determine the incidence of stone composition and identify age and gender distributions from 1977 to 2006. A subset of 58,682 stone analyses from 1993 to 2006 was available to identify regional differences in stone composition in Germany., Results: Calcium containing calculi were most common in each gender. The overall male-to-female ratio of 2.4:1 increased from 1977 (1.86:1) to 2006 (2.7:1). The predominance of male calcium stone formers was even higher among elderly patients with a 3.13:1 ratio at ages 60 to 69. Since 1997, we observed a tendency toward an increasing incidence in middle-aged patients at ages 40 to 49 years. While the rate of infection stones constantly decreased, the incidence of uric acid calculi remained stable with an overall rate of 11.7% in males and 7.0% in females with a peak at higher ages. Cystine stones remained rare at 0.4% in males and 0.7% in females. In terms of regional analyses we noted great variation in stone composition in the 2 genders. Uric acid stones were more common in the eastern and southern regions but infection stones were mostly seen in eastern regions., Conclusions: In what is to our knowledge the largest series of stone analysis reported to date we identified an age and gender relationship of stone formation and composition. Regional variations are common and underline the influence of living habits, diet and standard of medical care on urinary stone formation., (Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The pathogenesis of calcium oxalate stone formation is not completely understood. Recently, an influence of vascular phenomena like arteriosclerosis on the crystallization process was hypothesized. Thus, stone formation should be more common in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) who are at risk of developing angiopathy. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of urolithiasis (UL) in patients with DM and to identify specific risk factors., Material and Methods: 350 patients with DM were evaluated with respect to DM-related history, and a total of 179 patients was included (83 female, 96 male; age 23-84 years). All patients were interviewed to assess the history of stone formation. These data were compared to epidemiological data in Germany., Results: The overall prevalence of UL in the diabetic group was 7.82% (vs. 4.73% in Germany, p = 0.0485; binominal test). The prevalence was significantly higher in patients with coronary heart disease (25%; p < 0.0001; Fisher's exact test). We could not demonstrate an increased prevalence of UL for patients with occlusive arterial disease or arterial hypertension as diabetic nephropathy was not a risk factor for developing urinary lithiasis (p = 0.7184, p = 1.000, p = 0.6266, respectively; Fisher's exact test). Thiazide medication lowered the prevalence of stone formation (p = 0.0399; Fisher's test). Calcium or magnesium supplementation did not influence stone formation significantly (p = 0.5279; p = 1.000; respectively; Fisher's test)., Conclusions: In Germany, patients with DM are at higher risk of UL compared with patients without diabetes. We demonstrated a significantly higher prevalence of urinary stones in patients with coronary heart disease. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that urinary stone formation has a vascular pathogenesis in part., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Der Urologe A is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)