Background: Evidence-based guidelines are published by urological organisations for various conditions, including urolithiasis. In this paper, we provide guidance on the management of kidney stone disease (KSD) and compare the American Urological Association (AUA) and European Association of Urologists (EAU) guidelines. Methods: We evaluate and appraise the evidence and grade of recommendation provided by the AUA and EAU guidelines on urolithiasis (both surgical and medical management). Results: Both the AUA and EAU guidelines provide guidance on the type of imaging, treatment options, and medical therapies and advice on specific patient groups, such as in paediatrics and pregnancy. While the guidelines are generally aligned and based on evidence, some subtle differences exist in the recommendations, but both are generally unanimous for the majority of the principles of management. Conclusions: We recommend that the guidelines should undergo regular updates based on recently published material, and while these guidelines provide a framework, treatment plans should still be personalised, respecting patient preferences, surgical expertise, and various other individual factors, to offer the best outcome for kidney stone patients.

Purpose:To assess the literature around post-treatment asymptomatic residual stone fragments, and to perform a meta-analysis. The main outcomes were intervention rate and disease progression.Materi...

Introduction: With the rise in the use of ureteroscopy and laser stone lithotripsy (URSL), a proportionate increase in the risk of post-procedural urosepsis has also been observed. The aims of our paper were to analyse the predictors for severe urosepsis using a machine learning model (ML) in patients that needed intensive care unit (ICU) admission and to make comparisons with a matched cohort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted across nine high-volume endourology European centres for all patients who underwent URSL and subsequently needed ICU admission for urosepsis (Group A). This was matched by patients with URSL without urosepsis (Group B). Statistical analysis was performed with ‘R statistical software’ using the ‘randomforests’ package. The data were segregated at random into a 70% training set and a 30% test set using the ‘sample’ command. A random forests ML model was then built with n = 300 trees, with the test set used for internal validation. Diagnostic accuracy statistics were generated using the ‘caret’ package. Results: A total of 114 patients were included (57 in each group) with a mean age of 60 ± 16 years and a male:female ratio of 1:1.19. The ML model correctly predicted risk of sepsis in 14/17 (82%) cases (Group A) and predicted those without urosepsis for 12/15 (80%) controls (Group B), whilst overall it also discriminated between the two groups predicting both those with and without sepsis. Our model accuracy was 81.3% (95%, CI: 63.7–92.8%), sensitivity = 0.80, specificity = 0.82 and area under the curve = 0.89. Predictive values most commonly accounting for nodal points in the trees were a large proximal stone location, long stent time, large stone size and long operative time. Conclusion: Urosepsis after endourological procedures remains one of the main reasons for ICU admission. Risk factors for urosepsis are reasonably accurately predicted by our innovative ML model. Focusing on these risk factors can allow one to create predictive strategies to minimise post-operative morbidity.

Objectives: Ureterorenoscopy is seeing a bloom of technological advances, one of which is incorporating suction. The objective of this study is to systematically review existing literature regarding suction use in rigid and flexible ureterorenoscopy and perform meta‐analysis of studies comparing suction versus no suction ureteroscopy or mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).Methods: A literature search was performed (November 2023) in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023482360). Comparative studies (observational and randomized) were eligible for inclusion if they compared suction versus no suction group and reported at least one primary outcome of interest (stone‐free or complication rate).Results: Sixteen studies (5 randomized and 11 observational), analysing 1086 and 1109 patients in standard and suction groups, respectively, were included. Final stone‐free rates (SFRs), overall and infectious complications and length of hospital stay exhibited significant improvement when suction was used. When mini‐PCNL was compared with flexible ureterorenoscopy with suction, no differences were found in terms of stone‐free and infectious complications rates.Conclusions: Ureterorenoscopy is a commonly performed endoscopic procedure for urolithiasis treatment, the success of which is defined by SFRs and complication rates. Application of suction via ureteral access sheaths, ureteral catheters or scopes may provide improved SFRs, reduced overall and infectious complication rates, along with a reduction in length of hospital stay. Further randomized studies are needed to validate these findings and standardize indications and protocols.

Objective: To systematically review the natural history of small asymptomatic kidney and residual stones, as the incidental identification of small, asymptomatic renal calculi has risen with increasing use of high‐resolution imaging. Materials and methods: We reviewed the natural history of small asymptomatic kidney and residual stones using the Cochrane and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) methodology. We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, EBSCO, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov using themes of ‘asymptomatic’, ‘nephrolithiasis’, ‘observation’, ‘symptoms’, ‘admission’, ‘intervention’ and similar allied terms for all English language articles from 1996 to 2020 (25 years). Inclusion criteria were studies with ≥50 patients, stones ≤10 mm, and a mean follow‐up of ≥24 months. Primary outcomes were occurrence of symptoms, emergency admission, and interventions. Results: Our literature search returned 2247 results of which 10 papers were included in the final review. Risk of symptomatic episodes ranged from 0% to 59.4%. Meta‐analysis did not identify any significant difference in the likelihood of developing symptoms when comparing stones 5 mm, nor those 10 mm. Risk of admission varied from 14% to 19% and the risk of intervention from 12% to 35%. Meta‐analysis showed a significantly decreased likelihood of intervention for stones 5 mm and 10 mm. Studies had variable risk of bias due to heterogeneous reporting of outcome measures with significant likelihood that observed differences in results were compatible with chance alone (Symptoms: I ² =0%, Cochran’s Q = 3.09, P  = 0.69; Intervention: I ² =0%, Cochran’s Q = 1.76, P  = 0.88). Conclusions: The present systematic review indicates that stone size is not a reliable predictor of symptoms; however, risk of intervention is greater for stones >5mm vs 10 vs <10 mm. This review will inform urologists as they discuss management strategies with patients who have asymptomatic renal stones and offer insight to committees during the development of evidence‐based guidelines.

Urolithiasis is a common clinical condition, and surgical treatment is performed with different minimally invasive procedures, such as ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Although the transition from open surgery to endourological procedures to treat this condition has been a paradigm shift, ongoing technological advancements have permitted further improvement of clinical outcomes with the development of modern equipment. Such innovations in kidney stone removal are new lasers, modern ureteroscopes, development of applications and training systems utilizing three-dimensional models, artificial intelligence and virtual reality, implementation of robotic systems, sheaths connected to vacuum devices and new types of lithotripters. Innovations in kidney stone removal have led to an exciting new era of endourological options for patients and clinicians alike.