Several societies around the world issue guidelines incorporating the latest evidence. However, even the most commonly cited guidelines of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and the American Urological Association (AUA) leave the clinician with several treatment options and differ on specific points. We aimed to identify discrepancies and areas of consensus between guidelines to give novel insights into areas where low consensus between the guideline panels exists, and therefore where more evidence might increase consensus. The webpages of the 61 members of the Societé Internationale d’Urologie were analysed to identify all listed or linked guidelines. Decision trees for the surgical management of urolithiasis were derived, and a comparative analysis was performed to determine consensus and discrepancies. Five national and one international guideline (EAU) on surgical stone treatment were available for analysis. While 7 national urological societies refer to the AUA guidelines and 11 to the EAU guidelines, 43 neither publish their own guidelines nor refer to others. Comparative analysis revealed a high degree of consensus for most renal and ureteral stone scenarios. Nevertheless, we also identified a variety of discrepancies between the different guidelines, the largest being the approach to the treatment of proximal ureteral calculi and larger renal calculi. Six guidelines with recommendations for the surgical treatment of urolithiasis to support urologists in decision-making were available for inclusion in our analysis. While there is a high grade of consensus for most stone scenarios, we also detected some discrepancies between different guidelines. These are, however, controversial situations where adequate evidence to assist with decision-making has yet to be elicited by further research.

Background: Current knowledge of the urinary tract microbiome is limited to urine analysis and analysis of biofilms formed on Foley catheters. Bacterial biofilms on ureteral stents have rarely been investigated, and no cultivation-independent data are available on the microbiome of the encrustations on the stents. Results: The typical encrustations of organic and inorganic urine-derived material, including microbial biofilms formed during 3–6 weeks on ureteral stents in patients treated for kidney and ureteral stones, and without reported urinary tract infection at the time of stent insertion, were analysed. Next-generation sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene V3–V4 region revealed presence of different urotypes, distinct bacterial communities. Analysis of bacterial load was performed by combining quantification of 16S rRNA gene copy numbers by qPCR with microscopy and cultivation-dependent analysis methods, which revealed that ureteral stent biofilms mostly contain low numbers of bacteria. Fluorescence microscopy indicates the presence of extracellular DNA. Bacteria identified in biofilms by microscopy had mostly morphogenic similarities to gram-positive bacteria, in few cases to Lactobacillus and Corynebacterium, while sequencing showed many additional bacterial genera. Weddellite crystals were absent in biofilms of patients with Enterobacterales and Corynebacterium-dominated microbiomes. Conclusions: This study provides novel insights into the bacterial burden in ureteral stent encrustations and the urinary tract microbiome. Short-term (3–6 weeks) ureteral stenting is associated with a low load of viable and visible bacteria in ureteral stent encrustations, which may be different from long-term stenting. Patients could be classified according to different urotypes, some of which were dominated by potentially pathogenic species. Facultative pathogens however appear to be a common feature in patients without clinically manifested urinary tract infection. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845726. Registered on 30 June 2016—retrospectively registered.

Objectives: To perform a post hoc analysis of in‐hospital costs incurred in a randomized controlled trial comparing prostatic artery embolization ( PAE ) and transurethral resection of the prostate ( TURP ). Patients and Methods: In‐hospital costs arising from PAE and TURP were calculated using detailed expenditure reports provided by the hospital accounts department. Total costs, including those arising from surgical and interventional procedures, consumables, personnel and accommodation, were analysed for all of the study participants and compared between PAE and TURP using descriptive analysis and two‐sided t ‐tests, adjusted for unequal variance within groups (Welch t ‐test). Results: The mean total costs per patient (± sd ) were higher for TURP , at €9137 ± 3301, than for PAE , at €8185 ± 1630. The mean difference of €952 was not statistically significant ( P = 0.07). While the mean procedural costs were significantly higher for PAE (mean difference €623 [ P = 0.009]), costs apart from the procedure were significantly lower for PAE , with a mean difference of €1627 ( P < 0.001). Procedural costs of €1433 ± 552 for TURP were mainly incurred by anaesthesia, whereas €2590 ± 628 for medical supplies were the main cost factor for PAE . Conclusions: Since in‐hospital costs are similar but PAE and TURP have different efficacy and safety profiles, the patient's clinical condition and expectations – rather than finances – should be taken into account when deciding between PAE and TURP .