Are prophylactic antibiotics necessary in patients with preoperative sterile urine undergoing ureterorenoscopic lithotripsy?

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Ureteroscopy and ureterorenoscopy

Technical advances, including miniaturization, have improved the deflection and optical performance of the ureteroscopes, and the availability of dedicated disposable devices have led to their increasing use for kidney and ureteral stone management. Ureterorenoscopy brings diagnostic evidence through the endoscopic description of stones and renal papillary abnormalities. Currently, intracorporeal lithotripsy during ureterorenoscopy is based on laser sources. Routine ureteral stenting is not necessary before ureterorenoscopy, especially because preoperative stenting for>30 days is considered as an independent risk factor of infection. Ureteral access sheaths allow the easy and repeated access to the upper urinary tract and thus facilitate ureterorenoscopy. Their use improves vision, decreases intrarenal pressure, and possibly reduces the operative time, but they may cause ureteral injury. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods: the Clinical Practice Recommendation (CPR) method and the ADAPTE method, depending on whether or not 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.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in flexible ureterorenoscopy with negative urine culture

Objective

To improve susceptibility profiles of nosocomial bacteria, identifying the difference between infectious complications in patients undergoing endoscopic flexible ureterolithotomy (fURS) with negative urine culture (UC) that received extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EP) compared with standard antibiotic prophylaxis (SP).

Methodology

This is a retrospective, observational, analytical cohort study, comparing infectious complications between patients undergoing fURS with negative UC who received EP versus SP. We include patients with susccessfull fURS, <20-mm stones and complete information.

Results

Overall, 10.3% of patients had complications, 7.2% of patients had postoperative urinary infection, 1.8% had upper urinary tract infection (UTI) and 1.4% had urinary sepsis. Lower UTI were significantly more likely in the extended prophylaxis group with 6.8% versus 2.7% (RR = 2.8; 95% CI: 1.10-7.37, p = 0.030). The risk of upper UTI and sepsis did not show significant differences. A total of 69% patients with postoperative infection had isolated multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDRB) in the UC, with a higher risk in patients with extended prophylaxis (RR = 3.1; 95% CI: 1.33-7.59, p = 0.009).

Conclusions

Patients with negative UC who underwent fURS using extended prophylaxis have two times higher risk of low UTI than patients with standard prophylaxis, without differences in the incidence of upper UTI or urinary sepsis. The risk of MDRB isolation in the postoperative UC is higher in the extended prophylaxis group, therefore we recommend the standard 60-min preoperative prophylaxis.

Korean Society of Endourology and Robotics (KSER) recommendation on the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis

This article provides evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions to aid urologists in making optimal decisions regarding managing urolithiasis in various clinical scenarios. The most frequently asked questions by urologists in their clinical practice have been collected and answered in the form of FAQs; based on the latest evidence and expert opinions. The natural history of urolithiasis is divided into active treatment and silent phases, with the active treatment stage divided into typical and special situations and peri-treatment management. The authors address 28 key questions, offering practical guidance for the proper diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of urolithiasis in clinical practice. This article is expected to be served as a valuable resource for urologists.

Comparison of Fragmentation and Dusting Modality Using Holmium YAG Laser during Ureteroscopy for the Treatment of Ureteral Stone: A Single-Center's Experience

Laser ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) is an efficacious treatment for ureteral stones. There have been few previous studies comparing the different energy and frequency settings for URSL in a single center. We compared these two laser modalities, which were simultaneously used in our medical center for the treatment of ureteral stones. Patients who underwent fragmentation or dusting laser URSL between September 2018 and June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared patients who underwent fragmentation and dusting laser and assessed the enhancing factors for stone free rate. There were a total of 421 patients with ureteral stones who met the study criteria. There was no significant difference between the characteristics of both groups. The fragmentation group had a better stone free rate and a lower retropulsion rate compared with the dusting group. Multivariate analysis revealed that stone basket use, no upper ureteral stone or pyuria significantly improved the stone free rate. Both laser modes were effective and safe for ureteral lithotripsy although the fragmentation system showed slightly higher effectiveness and lower complication rate.

Intraoperative and postoperative surgical complications after ureteroscopy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Retrograde ureteroscopy (URS), intra-renal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) represent routine interventions for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones, although at times associated with serious adverse events. Of note, the evidence on perioperative complications after these procedures remains sparse and controversial. Moreover, there is a lack of standardized reporting of adverse events using uniform systems. The aim of the present study was to systematically review of the available evidence on URS/RIRS and PCNL for the surgical treatment of urinary stone, assessing the incidence of intra- and postoperative events, classified according to the modified Clavien-Dindo scale.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review of the literature was performed according to PRISMA recommendations and was conducted on intra- and postoperative complications, as well as on their management, following URS, RIRS and PCNL procedures, particularly focusing on major events.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 26 studies (13 on URS/RIRS and 11 on PCNL) met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. The highest intraoperative complication rate was 11.5% and 8.5% for RIRS and PCNL, respectively. Major complication rate following URS/RIRS and PCNL ranged between 0.3-31.7% and 2-17.1%, respectively. The most frequent adverse events were obstructive pyelonephritis or urinary leakage requiring the placement of a double J stent or a drainage. Among PCNLs series, life-threatening adverse events have also been reported, including bleeding requiring renal angioembolization and urothorax.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the inclusion of series using a standardized reporting system, the complication rate after URS/RIRS/PCNL remains extensively heterogeneous in the literature; in addition, a non-negligible proportion of studies did not characterize the adverse events nor report the actual management strategy to solve them. Future research is needed to standardize the classification and reporting of surgical complications after endourological procedures (taking into consideration the surgeon's experience and skills), aiming to improve patient counseling and potentially the strategy for their prevention.

Risk Factors for a Complicated Postoperative Course in Flexible Ureteroscopy

INTRODUCTION

The goal was to determine risk factors for Clavien-Dindo (CD) grade ≥2 complications, with special focus on early postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), for flexible ureteroscopy (fURS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective monocentric statistical analysis relating to 32 factors was performed with the χ2 test, Mann-Whitney U tests, and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In total, 416 consecutive fURS performed between September 2013 and June 2017 were analyzed; 283 (68.03%) of these were for stone surgery and 133 (31.97%) for diagnostic purposes. In 43 cases (10.34%), CD ≥2 occurred; 31 cases (72.09%) of these were SIRS. On multivariate logistic regression, positive preoperative urine culture and steep pyelographic and CT-based infundibulopelvic angle (IPA) have been confirmed as independent risk factors for both CD ≥2 and SIRS. Greater maximal median stone diameter and female gender were significantly associated only with a higher CD ≥2 prevalence, but not with SIRS. The influence of ureteral access sheath (UAS) on CD ≥ 2 or SIRS occurrence could not be confirmed on multivariate analysis. Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with negative urine culture showed no difference regarding SIRS prevalence.

CONCLUSION

Steep CT-based IPA can be considered as a new radiologic predictor of complicated postoperative course and SIRS. The role of UAS as well as indications for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis should be determined in prospective studies.

How does pre-operative antimicrobial treatment influence the intra-operative culture results and infectious complications in patients with positive baseline bladder urine culture undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy?

We investigated how pre-operative antimicrobial treatment influenced intra-operative culture (IC) results and infectious complications in patients with positive pre-operative bladder urine culture (PBUC) undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy. We assessed 162 patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy from April 2019 to March 2020. Based on PBUC findings, they were divided into positive and negative PBUC groups. We administered pre-operative antimicrobial treatment to the positive PBUC group and only peri-operative antimicrobial prophylaxis to the negative PBUC group. We examined intra-operative cultures (ICs), including bladder urine culture, renal pelvic urine culture and stone culture, in all cases. We studied the association between the results of PBUC, ICs and infectious complications in both groups. A total of 67 and 95 patients had positive and negative PBUC, respectively. In the positive PBUC group, 19 (28.4%) patients still had positive bladder urine culture after the antibiotic treatment. Positive ICs (43.3% vs. 3.2%, p < 0.001) and post-operative fever (16.4% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.001) were more common in the positive PBUC group than in the negative PBUC group. In the positive PBUC group, 11 patients had a post-operative fever, regardless of the ICs results (6 positive ICs and 5 negative ICs). Furthermore, antimicrobial-resistant bacteria were detected from ICs in 5 patients with positive PBUC, including 4 suffering from a post-operative fever. Although the effect of pre-operative antimicrobial treatment is not definitive, to avoid serious infectious complications, we should recognize high-risk patients and perform more careful infection control based on the pre- and intra-operative culture results.

Evaluating the usefulness of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to ESWL in patients with sterile urine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this review is to evaluate the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis (AP) on asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) in patients with sterile urine undergoing ESWL.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Registry were searched systematically for randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of AP in patients with sterile urine undergoing SWL up to May 2020. Risk ratios were used to compare dichotomous outcomes. A stratified analysis was performed depending on the risk of bias assessment of the included studies. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Sixteen studies were evaluated including 2442 patients. When evaluating all the included studies (regardless of the risk of bias assessment), the risk of AB was RR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.64-1.21, P=0.42 and the risk of UTI was RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.22-1.36, P=0.19. When excluding the high risk of bias studies, the risk for AB was RR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.63-1.28, P=0.55 and for UTI RR: 1.18, 95% CI: 0.38-3.72, P=0.77. When evaluating patients that underwent instrumentation of the urinary tract the risk for AB was RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.66-1.27, P=0.6 and for UTI was RR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.22-2.22, P=0.54.

CONCLUSIONS

AP is not necessary for patients with sterile urine prior to ESWL for the prevention of UTI. Also, patients that undergo instrumentation of the urinary tract prior to or during ESWL do not benefit from antibiotic prophylaxis but further research is required.

Preventing sepsis development in complicated urinary tract infections

Introduction: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most prevalent infections in the community and the most common reason for antimicrobial prescribing in ambulatory care. A UTI is defined as complicated when urinary tract anatomical abnormalities or urinary devices are present, when it is recurrent and when associated with immunodeficiency. Complicated UTIs (cUTIs) have a higher risk of treatment failure and often require longer antimicrobial treatment courses. cUTIs, especially those which are healthcare-associated, are often due to multidrug resistant organisms (MDROs).Areas covered: This article will review the available evidence in relation to prevention of sepsis in cUTI, evaluating the risk factors associated with sepsis development. Published articles from January 2005 to September 2019 on UTIs and sepsis prevention in complicated UTIs were identified by using MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine Bethesda MD) and by reviewing the references of retrieved articles.Expert opinion: Prevention of sepsis relies on prompt and timely diagnosis of cUTI, early identification of the causative organism, removal of obstructions and source control, proper and adequate empirical/targeted antimicrobial treatment. In particular, source control, i.e. removal of urinary obstructions, infected stents, urinary catheters, nephrostomies, and drainage of hydronephrosis/abscess, is essential for preventing the development and progression of sepsis.

Recommended antibiotic prophylaxis regimen in retrograde intrarenal surgery: evidence from a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the incidence of postoperative systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) following different antibiotic prophylaxis (ABP) regimens in retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-centre, randomised, controlled trial (August 2014-September 2017) including 426 patients with renal stones with preoperative sterile urine managed by RIRS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02304822). Different ciprofloxacin-based ABP regimens were used and included a zero dose, single dose (30 min before surgery) or two doses (first dose at 30 min before RIRS and additional dose within 6 h after RIRS). The incidence of SIRS was compared using intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.

RESULTS

Each group enrolled 142 patients. In the ITT analysis, a zero dose of ABP was statistically similar to the two ABP regimes for the incidence of SIRS (9.9% vs single dose 4.9%, P = 0.112; vs two doses 4.2%, P = 0.062). There were also no relevant differences across groups in the PP analysis; no urosepsis was recorded. In subgroup analysis with stratification by stone area, the three regimens all had a low and similar incidence of SIRS for stones of ≤200 mm² in the ITT analysis with a sufficient power value (5.4% vs 6.2% vs 3.6%, P = 0.945 vs single dose and P = 0.553 vs two doses). However, there was a greater chance of SIRS in patients who received no ABP with stones of >200 mm² (18% vs single dose 4.3%, P = 0.036; vs two doses 5.5%, P = 0.044). Similar trends were seen in the PP analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with preoperative sterile urine, ABP is not strongly recommended in patients with stones of ≤200 mm² , but for stones >200 mm² single-dose ABP is still required.

Infectious Complications After Laser Vaporization of Urinary Stones During Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Are Not Associated with Spreading of Bacteria into Irrigation Fluid but with Previous Use of Fluoroquinolones

BACKGROUND

The pathogenesis of infectious complications after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) is not fully understood.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate spreading of bacteria into irrigation fluid and blood during RIRS for stone management and to correlate such spreading with infectious complications.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

From January to December 2017, 38 patients who underwent RIRS for stones in two urological units were enrolled in this prospective, longitudinal cohort study.

INTERVENTION

A urine culture was taken before surgery and antimicrobial prophylaxis was given in line with the European Association of Urology guidelines. Blood and irrigation fluid samples were collected at the start of the endoscopic procedure and every 30min during the procedure. All samples were microbiologically examined and findings were compared with clinical data.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Symptomatic and asymptomatic urinary tract infectious complications were correlated with microbiological and clinical data, using Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Ten patients showed significant bacterial growth in irrigation fluid samples (seven Escherichia coli, two Klebsiella pneumoniae, and one Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Eight patients (21%) got febrile urinary tract infections during hospital stay: two had bacterial growth in the irrigation fluid (25%) and one also had bacteremia (12.5%). No correlation was found either between the bacterial growth in the irrigation fluid samples and the urine cultures that were taken before the procedure, or between the bacterial growth in the irrigation fluid samples and the development of postoperative infectious complications. Previous use of fluoroquinolones and a history of urinary tract infections were associated with infectious complications after RIRS.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated spreading of bacteria into the irrigation fluid during RIRS procedures, but this spreading was not associated with the development of infectious complications. Particular attention should be given to previous antibiotic treatment before administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Bacterial spreading into irrigation fluid is a common finding during retrograde intrarenal surgery, but it is not associated with infectious complications after the procedure. Particular attention should be given to previous antibiotic treatment before administration of antimicrobial prophylaxis.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and the different strategies used to prevent infection in ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URL) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search using Pubmed, Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, and the Chinese CBM, CNKI and VIP databases was performed to find comparative studies on the efficacy of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies in URL for preventing postoperative infections. The last search was conducted on 25 June 2017. Summarized unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the efficacy of different antibiotic prophylaxis strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies in 4 591 patients were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the risk of postoperative febrile urinary tract infections (fUTIs) between groups with and without antibiotic prophylaxis (OR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.40-1.67; P = 0.59). Patients receiving a single dose of preoperative antibiotics had a significantly lower risk of pyuria (OR: 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.69; P = 0.0007) and bacteriuria (OR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.11-0.58; P = 0.001) than those who did not. Intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis was not superior to single-dose oral antibiotic prophylaxis in reducing fUTI (OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.26-3.88; P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis did not lower the risk of postoperative fUTI, but a single dose could reduce the incidence of pyuria or bacteriuria. A single oral dose of preventive antibiotics is preferred because of its cost-effectiveness. The efficacy of different types of antibiotics and other strategies could not be assessed in our meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials with a larger sample size and more rigorous study design are needed to validate these conclusions.

[THE RISK FACTORS AND CHEMOPREVENTION OF FEBRILE URINARY TRACT INFECTION AFTER TRANSURETHRAL URETEROLITHOTRIPSY]

(Objectives) Transurethral Ureterolithotripsy (TUL) has become an increasingly more common treatment for ureteric stones since the reduction in ureteroscope diameter and other device improvements. At the same time, TUL sometimes shows postoperative febrile urinary tract infection (fUTI) with severe complications. Therefore we investigated the occurrence and risk factors of fUTI in our hospital, and assessed the effect of antibiotic prophylaxis prior to TUL. (Materials and methods) The subjects were 260 patients who underwent TUL in our department during the period from January 2011 to October 2014. We retrospectively reviewed the data of those who developed postoperative fUTI and identified the risk factors of postoperative fUTI. From November 2014 to August 2016, we enrolled 110 patients undergoing TUL with one or more risk factors in a prospective clinical trial of prophylactic oral levofloxacin (500 mg) for 1 week before TUL. The chi-squared test, Mann-Whitney U-test, and logistic regression analysis were used for data analysis (significance level of 0.05). (Results) Postoperative fUTI occurred in 43 (16.5%) of 260 patients. The risk factors of postoperative fUTI included preoperative pyelonephritis (P=0.02), preoperative ureteral stent placement (P=0.017), and operative time >90 min (P=0.005). Operative time was correlated with and could be substituted for pre-TUL stone size (P<0.0001). Chemopreventive therapy before TUL in patients with preoperative pyelonephritis, preoperative ureteral stent placement, or stones of >20 mm significantly reduced their risk of fUTI (P=0.012). (Conclusions) The use of antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces the risk of postoperative fUTI in patients with preoperative pyelonephritis, preoperative ureteral stent placement, or stones of >20 mm.

The stone surgeon in the mirror: how are German-speaking urologists treating large renal stones today?

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate the current treatment strategies of LRS in German-speaking Europe. Little is known about the treatment of large renal stones (LRS > 3 cm) in daily urological practice. LRS therapy can be, however, challenging and hazardous.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 39 item web-based survey was performed among urologists listed by the German, Austrian and Swiss Associations of Urology, addressing professionals treating LRS "on their own" and working in a German-speaking country. Uniparametric descriptions indicated as absolute numbers and percentages without p values, simple linear associations and bubble plots without arithmetic means or bar charts with standard deviation between targeted parameters and percentages were used.

RESULTS

266 of the 6586 responding urologists claimed to treat urinary stones on a regular basis. The majority of them were male (90.2%) and over 50 years old (42.9%). Most stones are treated in non-university hospitals (69.5%). 81.9% of all the institutions treat more than 150 cases/y. Open surgery is still performed in 45.5% of the centres, laparoscopy in 32%. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) is the primary treatment option. Antimicrobial strategies vary considerably. Serious complications seem to be rare. However, quite a few responders reported treatment-related deaths. The main limitation is the absolute number of urologists performing LRS treatment, which is unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

The German-speaking urologist treating LRS is a male and over 50. Although he performs PNL primarily, he is not averse to open surgery and SWL. He applies guidelines and employs modern equipment. Only antimicrobial strategies are out of line with the international standards.

POSSIBILITIES TO IMPROVE THE THERAPY OF THE PATIENTS WITH URETERAL CONCRETIONS

The aim of the given study was to improve the results of treatment of patients with concretions of the upper third of the ureter. Materials and methods. The clinical trial was carried out as a non-interventional open, controlled, in two groups of patients with baseline control. The inclusion criteria concerned the patients with concretions of the upper third of the ureter 0.7-0.9 mm in size, which had one session of an extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL), and after the procedure the size of the concretions fragments was up to3 mm. The study involved 60 patients, all patients in the main group (n = 30) were treated using phytotherapy, within 1 month starting with basic therapy under hospital conditions and continuing with preventative treatment in an outpatient setting. The control group (n = 30) received baseline therapy (up to 10 days) at the stationary stage. Results and discussion. In patients of the main group, fragments of concretions came out significantly faster, namely: in the main group, the fragments came out in 21 patients (70.0 %), while in the control group in 15 patients (50.0 %) (p1- p2, p <0.05) to the 7th day, and in the main group, the fragments came out in one patient more than 14 days, and in the control group – in 5 patients, p <0.05. The "stone path" in the bottom third of the ureter was in 1 patient (3.3 %) of the main group and in 3 patients (10.0 %) in the control group (p1-p2, p <0.05). The "stone path" departure time in patients of the main group was 2 days, and in patients of the control group it was 4.1 days from the time of its formation (p1-p2, p <0.05). Bacteriuria was observed in the main group on the 10th day 6.6 % less relative to the control group. Conclusion. At comparing the obtained results in patients of both groups in 1 month it was noted that high efficacy of the treatment was registered in 6 (20 %) patients of the main group and in 3 patients (10 %) of the control group (p <0.05), moderate efficiency was registered in 23 (76.7 %) patients of the main group and in 22 (73.3 %) patients of the control group respectively, low efficacy was registered in 1 (3.33 %) patient in the main group and 5 (16.7 %) patients of the control group (p <0,05), which points to the effectiveness of Urolesan capsules use in complex therapy of patients with concretions of the one third of ureter.

Antibiotic prophylaxis and its appropriate timing for urological surgical procedures in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria: A systematic review

Objective

To review the existing literature on when and how to treat patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) who undergo urological surgery, as uncertainty about this issue persists.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted to compare the different timing of administration of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with AB undergoing urological surgery. We used predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and we also developed a specific quality scale to assess the quality of the papers included.

Results

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the nine studies included, eight evaluated antibiotic prophylaxis regardless of the presence of AB, as their purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for urological procedures. Of these, four studies showed a significant reduction in the rate of infections in the intervention group compared with placebo, or with the same antibiotic therapy but using different durations of therapy. Four studies found no significant differences in infectious complications between the intervention and comparison arms. Only one study assessed the duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in patients with AB.

Conclusions

With the available evidence, antibiotic therapy should be considered only for procedures in which studies have shown a clinical benefit in the prevention of infection. It is important to establish the duration and type of treatment for antimicrobial therapy for surgical prophylaxis in patients with AB who are going to receive urological invasive procedures.

EAU Guidelines on Interventional Treatment for Urolithiasis

CONTEXT

Management of urinary stones is a major issue for most urologists. Treatment modalities are minimally invasive and include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Technological advances and changing treatment patterns have had an impact on current treatment recommendations, which have clearly shifted towards endourologic procedures. These guidelines describe recent recommendations on treatment indications and the choice of modality for ureteral and renal calculi.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the optimal measures for treatment of urinary stone disease.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Several databases were searched to identify studies on interventional treatment of urolithiasis, with special attention to the level of evidence.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Treatment decisions are made individually according to stone size, location, and (if known) composition, as well as patient preference and local expertise. Treatment recommendations have shifted to endourologic procedures such as URS and PNL, and SWL has lost its place as the first-line modality for many indications despite its proven efficacy. Open and laparoscopic techniques are restricted to limited indications. Best clinical practice standards have been established for all treatments, making all options minimally invasive with low complication rates.

CONCLUSION

Active treatment of urolithiasis is currently a minimally invasive intervention, with preference for endourologic techniques.

PATIENT SUMMARY

For active removal of stones from the kidney or ureter, technological advances have made it possible to use less invasive surgical techniques. These interventions are safe and are generally associated with shorter recovery times and less discomfort for the patient.