Classification of the renal papillary abnormalities by flexible ureteroscopy: evaluation of the 2016 version and update

Renal papillary tip biopsy in stone formers: a review of clinical safety and insights

Alexander Randall first published renal papillary tip findings from stone formers in 1937, paving the way for endoscopic assessment to study stone pathogenesis. We performed a literature search to evaluate the safety of papillary tip biopsy and clinical insights gained from modern renal papillary investigations. A search on the topic of renal papillary biopsy provided an overview of Randall's plaques (RP), classification systems for renal papillary grading, and a summary of procedure type, complications, and outcomes. Within 26 identified manuscripts, 660 individuals underwent papillary tip biopsy percutaneously (n = 562), endoscopically (n = 37), or unspecified (n = 23). Post-operative hemoglobin changes were similar to controls. One individual (0.2%) reported fever > 38°, and long-term mean serum creatinine post-biopsy (n = 32) was unchanged. Biopsies during ureteroscopy or PCNL added ~20-30 min of procedure time. Compared to controls, papillary plaque-containing tissue had upregulation in pro-inflammatory genes, immune cells, and cellular apoptosis. Urinary calcium and papillary plaque coverage were found to differ between RP and non-RP stone formers, suggesting differing underlying pathophysiology for these groups. Two renal papillary scoring systems have been externally validated and are used to classify stone formers. Overall, this review shows that renal papillary biopsies have a low complication profile with high potential for further research. Systematic adaption of a papillary grading scale, newer tissue analysis techniques, and the development of animal models of Randall's plaque may allow further exploration of plaque pathogenesis and identify targets for prevention therapies in patients with nephrolithiasis.

Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis

PURPOSE

Urolithiasis has become increasingly prevalent, leading to higher disability-adjusted life years and deaths. Various stone classification systems have been developed to enhance the understanding of lithogenesis, aid urologists in treatment decisions, and predict recurrence risk. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview of different stone classification criteria.

METHODS

Two authors conducted a review of literature on studies relating to the classification of urolithiasis. A narrative synthesis for analysis of the studies was used.

RESULTS

Stones can be categorized based on anatomical position, size, medical imaging features, risk of recurrence, etiology, composition, and morphoconstitutional analysis. The first three mentioned offer a straightforward approach to stone classification, directly influencing treatment recommendations. With the routine use of CT imaging before treatment, precise details like anatomical location, stone dimensions, and Hounsfield Units can be easily determined, aiding treatment planning. In contrast, classifying stones based on risk of recurrence and etiology is more complex due to dependencies on multiple variables, including stone composition and morphology. A classification system based on morphoconstitutional analysis, which combines morphological stone appearance and chemical composition, has demonstrated its value. It allows for the rapid identification of crystalline phase principles, the detection of crystalline conversion processes, the determination of etiopathogenesis, the recognition of lithogenic processes, the assessment of crystal formation speed, related recurrence rates, and guidance for selecting appropriate treatment modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing that no single classification system can comprehensively cover all aspects, the integration of all classification approaches is essential for tailoring urolithiasis patient-specific management.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Medical management - from diagnosis to treatment

The morphological-compositional analysis of urinary stones allows distinguishing schematically several situations: dietary, digestive, metabolic/hormonal, infectious and genetic problems. Blood and urine testing are recommended in the first instance to identify risk factors of urinary stone disease in order to avoid recurrence or progression. The other objective is to detect a potential underlying pathology associated with high risk of urinary stone disease (e.g. primary hyperparathyroidism, primary or enteric hyperoxaluria, cystinuria, distal renal tubular acidosis) that may require specific management. Lifestyle-diet measures are the basis of the management of all stone types, but pharmacological treatments may be required. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) [EAU 2022] and their adaptability to the French context.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Endoscopic description of renal papillae and stones

Endoscopic observation is performed during treatments by flexible ureteroscopy to differentiate in situ between renal papillary abnormalities and stones based on their concordance with Daudon's morphological/composition descriptions adapted to endoscopy. These intraoperative visual analyses are now an integral part of the urinary stone disease diagnostic approach in addition to the morphological/structural and spectrophotometric analysis that remains the reference exam, but that loses information on the stone component representativeness due to the development of in situ laser lithotripsy. These are the first practical recommendations on the endoscopic description of renal papillae and stones. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendations (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022]) and their adaptability to the French context.

Determinants of renal papillary appearance in kidney stone formers: An in-depth examination

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investi-gate the association between the urinary metabolic milieu and kidney stone recurrence with a validated papillary evaluation score (PPLA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 30 stone for-mers who underwent retrograde intrarenal surgery procedures. Visual inspection of the accessible renal papillae was performed to calculate PPLA score, based on the characterization of ductal plugging, surface pitting, loss of papillary contour and Randall's plaque extension. Stone compositions, 24h urine collections and kidney stone events during follow-up were collected. Relative supersaturation ratios (RSS) for calcium oxalate (CaOx), brushite and uric acid were calculated using EQUIL-2. PPLA score > 3 was defined as high.

RESULTS

Median follow-up period was 11 months (5, 34). PPLA score was inversely correlated with BMI (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38, 0.91, p = 0.018), type 2 diabetes (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.003, 0.58, p = 0.018) and history of recurrent kidney stones (OR 0.17, 95%CI 0.04, 0.75, p = 0.019). The associations between PPLA score, diabetes and BMI were not confirmed after excluding patients with uric acid stones. Higher PPLA score was associated with lower odds of new kidney stone events during follow-up (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02, 1.00, p = 0.05). No other significant correla-tions were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm the lack of efficacy of PPLA score in phenotyping patients affected by kidney stone disease or in predicting the risk of stone recurrence. Larger, long-term studies need to be performed to clarify the role of PPLA on the risk of stone recurrence.

Endoscopic Papillary Abnormalities and Stone Recognition (EPSR) during Flexible Ureteroscopy: A Comprehensive Review

Introduction: The increasing efficiency of the different lasers and the improved performance of endoscopic devices have led to smaller stone fragments that impact the accuracy of microscopic evaluation (morphological and infrared). Before the stone destruction, the urologist has the opportunity to analyze the stone and the papillary abnormalities endoscopically (endoscopic papillary recognition (EPR) and endoscopic stone recognition (ESR)). Our objective was to evaluate the value for those endoscopic descriptions. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched in February 2021 for studies on endoscopic papillary recognition and endoscopic stone recognition. Results: If the ESR provided information concerning the main crystallization process, EPR provided information concerning the origin of the lithogenesis and its severity. Despite many actual limitations, those complementary descriptions could support the preventive care of the stone formers in improving the diagnosis of the lithogenesis mechanism and in identifying high-risk stone formers. Conclusion: Until the development of an Artificial Intelligence recognition, the endourologist has to learn EPSR to minimize the distortion effect of the new lasers on the stone analysis and to improve care efficiency of the stone formers patients.

Atlas of scoring systems, grading tools and nomograms in Endourology: A comprehensive overview from The TOWER Endourological Society research group

INTRODUCTION

With an increase in the prevalence of kidney stone disease (KSD), there has been a universal drive to develop reliable and user-friendly tools such as grading systems and predictive nomograms. An atlas of scoring systems, grading tools and nomograms in Endourology is provided in this paper.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of world literature was performed to identify nomograms, grading systems and classification tools in endourology related to KSD. Each of these were reviewed by the authors and have been evaluated in a narrative format with details on those which are externally validated and their respective citation count on google scholar.

RESULTS

A total of 54 endourological tools have been described in our atlas of endourological scoring systems, grading tools and nomograms. Of the tools, 23 (43%) are published in the last 3 years showing an increasing interest in this area. This includes 5 for percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), 6 for flexible ureteroscopy (fURS), 3 for semi-rigid URS (sURS), 9 for shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), 2 for stent encrustations, 3 for intra-operative appearance at the time of URS and 3 to classify intra-operative ureteric injury. There were 3 tools for renal colic assessment, one each for prediction of future stone event, stone classification and stone impaction and 2 for need of emergency intervention in ureteric stone. While 2 tools are related to stone recurrence, 6 are related to post-procedural complications. There are now 2 tools for simulation in endourology and 5 for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS).

CONCLUSIONS

A number of reliable and established tools exist currently in endourology. Each of these offers their own respective advantages and disadvantages. While nomograms and scoring systems can help in the decision making, these must be tailored to individual patients based on their specific clinical scenarios, expectations and informed consent.

Toward improved endoscopic examination of urinary stones: a concordance study between endoscopic digital pictures vs microscopy

Objective

To improve endoscopic recognition of the most frequently encountered urinary stone morphologies for a better aetiological approach in lithiasis by urologists.

Materials and Methods

An expert urologist intraoperatively and prospectively (between June 2015 and June 2018) examined the surface, the section, and the nucleus of all encountered kidney stones. Fragmented stones were subsequently analysed by a biologist based on both microscopic morphological (i.e. binocular magnifying glass) and infrared (i.e. Fourier transform‐infrared spectroscopy) examinations (microscopists were blinded to the endoscopic data). Morphological criteria were collected and classified for the endoscopic and microscopic studies. The Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was used to detect differences between the endoscopic and microscopic diagnoses. A diagnosis for a given urinary stone was considered ‘confirmed’ for a non‐statistically significant difference.

Results

A total of 399 urinary stones were included in this study: 51.4% of the stones had only one morphological type, while 48.6% were mixed stones (41% had at least two morphologies and 7.6% had three morphologies). The overall matching rate was 81.6%. Diagnostics were confirmed for the following morphologies: whewellite (Ia or Ib), weddellite (IIa or IIb), uric acid (IIIa or IIIb), carbapatite‐struvite association (IVb), and brushite (IVd).

Conclusions

Our preliminary study demonstrates the feasibility of using endoscopic morphology for the most frequently encountered urinary stones and didactic boards of confirmed endoscopic images are provided. The present study constitutes the first step toward endoscopic stone recognition, which is essential in lithiasis. We provide didactic boards of confirmed endoscopic images that pave the way for automatic computer‐aided in situ recognition.

[Recommendations of the Urolithiasis Committee of the French Urology Association for the management and the treatment of the stone formers patients during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis]

Confrontés à une crise d’une ampleur exceptionnelle liée à la pandémie à coronavirus COVID-19 responsable d’une saturation selon les régions des urgences et des places en réanimation, le Comité Lithiase de l’Association Française d’Urologie (CLAFU) a élaboré pour la première fois les recommandations de prise en charge des calculs urinaires durant cette crise sanitaire.