» Articles » PMID: 38546854

Follow-up of Urolithiasis Patients After Treatment: an Algorithm from the EAU Urolithiasis Panel

Overview
Journal World J Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2024 Mar 28
PMID 38546854
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Impact of flow rate and ratio of endoscope-sheath diameter on stone removal in flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy: in vitro and CFD analyses insights.

Zhang B, Han S, Zhang L, Wang X, Zhang X, Liang X Int Urol Nephrol. 2025; .

PMID: 39918701 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-025-04392-7.


Comment on "Comparison of the bone mineral density status of patients with kidney stones stratified by stone composition".

Zhang Y, Zhu C, Wang B World J Urol. 2024; 42(1):514.

PMID: 39251418 DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-05223-7.


Recurrent Urinary Stone Formers: Imaging Assessment and Endoscopic Treatment Strategies: A Systematic Search and Review.

Mavridis C, Bouchalakis A, Tsagkaraki V, Somani B, Mamoulakis C, Tokas T J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38929988 PMC: 11204450. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123461.


Assessment of Effectiveness and Safety of Aspiration-Assisted Nephrostomic Access Sheaths in PCNL and Intrarenal Pressures Evaluation: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Nizzardo M, Albo G, Ripa F, Zino E, De Lorenzis E, Boeri L J Clin Med. 2024; 13(9).

PMID: 38731086 PMC: 11084567. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13092558.

References
1.
Hesse A, Brandle E, Wilbert D, Kohrmann K, Alken P . Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol. 2003; 44(6):709-13. DOI: 10.1016/s0302-2838(03)00415-9. View

2.
Stamatelou K, Francis M, Jones C, Nyberg L, Curhan G . Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976-1994. Kidney Int. 2003; 63(5):1817-23. DOI: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2003.00917.x. View

3.
Okuyama M . [Epidemiology of urolithiasis]. Clin Calcium. 2011; 21(10):1442-7. DOI: CliCa111014421447. View

4.
Strohmaier W . Course of calcium stone disease without treatment. What can we expect?. Eur Urol. 2000; 37(3):339-44. DOI: 10.1159/000052367. View

5.
Ferraro P, Curhan G, DAddessi A, Gambaro G . Risk of recurrence of idiopathic calcium kidney stones: analysis of data from the literature. J Nephrol. 2016; 30(2):227-233. DOI: 10.1007/s40620-016-0283-8. View