Patients with urolithiasis have access to a wide range of efficacious therapeutic surgical options, including shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), retrograde ureteric or intrarenal surgery with semi-rigid and flexible ureteroscopes (URS or fURS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). In recent years, there have been many peer-reviewed publications evaluating new techniques and new equipment, such as pulse-modulated Holmium:YAG and thulium fibre lasers. However, when reviewing this extensive literature, it becomes apparent that there is no consensus on what constitutes a ‘successful’ stone treatment outcome.
Objectives:
The purpose of this article is to review the existing measures of ‘success’ after the ureteroscopic treatment of urolithiasis and to promote a standardised and holistic approach to reporting outcomes in clinical trials.
Methods:
Our narrative review focussed on studies examining measures of success in urolithiasis treatment published within the last 10 years.
Conclusions:
Due to markedly different reported outcome measures of treatments for urolithiasis, comparing results between studies can be difficult. In addition to measuring clinical outcomes, there is an increasing acknowledgement of the importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in determining treatment success, and the need to consider the cost-effectiveness and environmental sustainability of various treatments. We suggest that all future studies on this common urological condition should incorporate holistic and tranpsarent outcome measures.
UlvikØHarneshaugJRGjengstøP. What do we mean by ‘stone free’, and how accurate are urologists in predicting stone-free status following ureteroscopy. J Endourol2021; 35(7): 961–966.
2.
ChewBHBrotherhoodHLSurRL, et al. Natural history, complications and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: A report from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol2016; 195(4Pt 1): 982–986.
3.
BrainEGeraghtyRMLovegroveCE, et al. Natural history of post-treatment kidney stone fragments: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol2021; 206(3): 526–538.
4.
VentimigliaEPauchardFQuadriniF, et al. High- and low-power laser lithotripsy achieves similar results: A systematic review and meta-analysis of available clinical series. J Endourol2021; 35(8): 1146–1152.
5.
Ulvik ÆsøyØMSJuliebø-JonesPGjengstøP, et al. Thulium fibre laser versus holmium:YAG for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: Outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol2022; 82(1): 73–79.
6.
ChuaMEBobrowskiAAhmadI, et al. Thulium fibre laser vs holmium: Yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy for urolithiasis: Meta-analysis of clinical studies. BJU Int2023; 131(4): 383–394.
7.
HumphreysMRShahODMongaM, et al. Dusting versus basketing during ureteroscopy-which technique is more efficacious? A prospective multicenter trial from the EDGE research consortium. J Urol2018; 199(5): 1272–1276.
8.
TraxerOWendt-NordahlGSodhaH, et al. Differences in renal stone treatment and outcomes for patients treated either with or without the support of a ureteral access sheath: The Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society Ureteroscopy Global Study. World J Urol2015; 33(12): 2137–2144.
9.
GiulioniCCastellaniDTraxerO, et al. Experimental and clinical applications and outcomes of using different forms of suction in retrograde intrarenal surgery. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed)2024; 48(1): 57–70.
10.
ReevesTPietropaoloAGadzhievN, et al. Role of endourological procedures (PCNL and URS) on renal function: A systematic review. Curr Urol Rep2020; 21(5): 21.
11.
ErtaşKTemizMZÇolakerolA, et al. Effects of flexible ureteroscopy on kidney: A prospective clinical trial. Turk J Urol2020; 46(4): 297–302.
12.
ReevesTPietropaoloASomaniBK.Ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation is safe and tends to improve renal function in patients with chronic kidney disease: Prospective outcomes with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. J Endourol2020; 34(4): 423–428.
13.
SolimanCMulhollandCJSantaguidaP, et al. Protocol for CAMUS Delphi study: A consensus on comprehensive reporting and grading of complications after urological surgery. Eur Urol Focus2022; 8(5): 1493–1511.
14.
CacciamaniGESholklapperTDell’OglioP, et al. The intraoperative complications assessment and reporting with universal standards (ICARUS) global surgical collaboration project: Development of criteria for reporting adverse events during surgical procedures and evaluating their impact on the postoperative course. Eur Urol Focus2022; 8(6): 1847–1858.
15.
SomaniBKGiustiGSunY, et al. Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: The Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global study. World J Urol2017; 35(4): 675–681.
16.
BhanotRPietropaoloATokasT, et al. Predictors and strategies to avoid mortality following ureteroscopy for stone disease: A systematic review from European Association of Urologists Sections of Urolithiasis (EULIS) and Uro-Technology (ESUT). Eur Urol Focus2022; 8(2): 598–607.
17.
ChughSPietropaoloAMontanariE, et al. Predictors of urinary infections and urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: A systematic review from EAU section of urolithiasis (EULIS). Curr Urol Rep2020; 21(4): 16.
18.
PietropaoloAGeraghtyRMVeeratterapillayR, et al. A machine learning predictive model for post-ureteroscopy urosepsis needing intensive care unit admission: A case-control YAU endourology study from nine European centres. J Clin Med2021; 10(17): 3888.
19.
HettiarachchiDRogersAVeeratterapillayR, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in ureteroscopy-time for a good quality randomised controlled trial. World J Urol2021; 39(7): 2809–2810.
20.
CaiTVerzePPalmieriA, et al. Is preoperative assessment and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria necessary for reducing the risk of postoperative symptomatic urinary tract infections after urologic surgical procedures?Urology2017; 99: 100–105.
21.
DengTLiuBDuanX, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. BJU Int2018; 122(1): 29–39.
22.
RajaAWoodFJoshiHB.The impact of urinary stone disease and their treatment on patients’ quality of life: A qualitative study. Urolithiasis2020; 48(3): 227–234.
23.
EllisonJSWilliamsMKeeleyFXJr.Patient-reported outcomes in nephrolithiasis: Can we do better. J Endourol2018; 32(1): 10–20.
24.
BrazierJEHarperRJonesNM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: New outcome measure for primary care. BMJ1992; 305(6846): 160–164.
25.
WareJJrKosinskiMKellerSD.A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care1996; 34(3): 220–233.
26.
RabinRde CharroF.EQ-SD: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med2001; 33(5): 337–343.
27.
DonnallyCJ3rdGuptaABensalahK, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of the SF-36 quality of life questionnaire in patients with kidney stones. Urol Res2011; 39(2): 141–146.
28.
DasguptaRCameronSAucottL, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): A multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol2021; 80(1): 46–54.
29.
PennistonKLNakadaSY.Development of an instrument to assess the health related quality of life of kidney stone formers. J Urol2013; 189(3): 921–930.
30.
PennistonKLAntonelliJAViprakasitDP, et al. Validation and reliability of the Wisconsin Stone Quality of Life Questionnaire. J Urol2017; 197(5): 1280–1288.
31.
TranMGBSutMKCollieJ, et al. Development of a disease-specific ureteral calculus patient reported outcome measurement instrument. J Endourol2018; 32(6): 548–558.
32.
RagabMBaldinNCollieJ, et al. Qualitative exploration of the renal stone patients’ experience and development of the renal stone-specific patient-reported outcome measure. BJU Int2020; 125(1): 123–132.
33.
ForbesCMBonnetKBryantT, et al. Decision-making and improvements in health-related quality of life in patients with kidney stones: Comparing surgery versus observation using a mixed methods analysis. Urolithiasis2022; 50(5): 567–576.
34.
JoshiHBJohnsonHPietropaoloA, et al. Urinary Stones and Intervention Quality of Life (USIQoL): Development and validation of a new core universal patient-reported outcome measure for urinary calculi. Eur Urol Focus2022; 8(1): 283–290.
35.
BosioAAlessandriaEAgostiSC, et al. Loop-tail stents fail in reducing stent-related symptoms: Results of a prospective randomised controlled trial. BJU Int2022; 129(1): 123–129.
36.
CalvertRCWongKYChitaleSV, et al. Multi-length or 24 cm ureteric stent? A multicentre randomised comparison of stent-related symptoms using a validated questionnaire. BJU Int2013; 111(7): 1099–1104.
37.
EhsanullahSABruceAJumanC, et al. Stent diameter and stent-related symptoms, does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Ann2022; 14(4): 295–302.
38.
Van BesienJKellerEXSomaniB, et al. Mirabegron for the treatment of ureteral stent-related symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus2022; 8(4): 1031–1041.
39.
DeliveliotisKPapatsorisAGSkolarikosA, et al. Management of stent-related symptoms with the use of α-blockers: A meta-analysis. Arab J Urol2020; 18(1): 14–21.
40.
JourILamATurneyB.Urological stone disease: A 5-year update of stone management using Hospital Episode statistics. BJU Int2022; 130(3): 364–369.
41.
GeraghtyRMCookPWalkerV, et al. Evaluation of the economic burden of kidney stone disease in the UK: A retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up of 19 years. BJU Int2020; 125(4): 586–594.
42.
WeinsteinMCTorranceGMcGuireA.QALYs: The basics. Value Health2009; 12 (Suppl. 1): S5–S9.
43.
RubinEBBuehlerAEHalpernSD.States worse than death among hospitalized patients with serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med2016; 176(10): 1557–1559.
44.
ConstantiMCalvertRCThomasK, et al. Cost analysis of ureteroscopy (URS) vs extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the management of ureteric stones <10 mm in adults: A UK perspective. BJU Int2020; 125(3): 457–466.
