Background/Objectives: Nephrolithiasis is a heterogeneous disease with a high prevalence and recurrence rate. Although there has been much progress regarding the surgical treatment of stones, a standardized follow-up, especially in recurrent stone formers (SFs), has yet to be decided. This fact leads to the overuse of computed tomography (CT) scans and many reoperations in patients, thus increasing their morbidity and the financial burden on the health systems. This review systematically searched the literature for original articles regarding imaging strategies and endoscopic treatment for patients with recurrent urolithiasis, aiming to identify optimal strategies to deal with these patients. Methods: We systematically searched the Medline database (accessed on 1 April 2024) for articles regarding imaging modalities and endoscopic treatment for patients with recurrent urinary tract lithiasis. Results: No specific follow-up or endoscopic treatment strategy exists for patients with recurrent urolithiasis. CT scan was the imaging modality most used in the studies, followed by X-ray, ultrasonography, and digital tomosynthesis. A transparent algorithm could not be identified. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and ureteroscopy (URS) were used in the studies for endoscopic treatment. PCNL showed the best stone-free (SFr) rate and lowest hazard ratio (HR) for reoperation. RIRS showed superiority over extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for recurrent SFs, but fragments over 4 mm increased the recurrent rate. URS has an increased HR for reoperation for bilateral stones. Conclusions: The heterogeneity of urolithiasis leaves urologists without a standardized plan for recurrent SFs. Thus, each patient's follow-up should be planned individually and holistically. Pre-stenting is not to be avoided, especially in high-risk patients, and SFr status needs to be the aim. Finally, CT scans should not be generally overused but should be part of a patient's treatment plan. Prospective studies are required to define SFr status, the size of significant residual fragments, and the modalities of intervention and follow-up.
Journal of clinical medicine. 2024 Jun 13*** epublish ***
Charalampos Mavridis, Athanasios Bouchalakis, Vasiliki Tsagkaraki, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Charalampos Mamoulakis, Theodoros Tokas
Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University General Hospital of Heraklion, 71110 Heraklion, Greece., Campus of Voutes, University of Crete Library, 70013 Heraklion, Greece., Department of Urology, University Hospitals Southampton, NHS Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK.