Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

PURPOSE: We assessed the literature around post-treatment asymptomatic residual stone fragments and performed a meta-analysis. The main outcomes were intervention rate and disease progression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched Ovid®, MEDLINE®, Embase™, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov using search terms: "asymptomatic", "nephrolithiasis", "ESWL", "PCNL", "URS" and "intervention." Inclusion criteria were all studies with residual renal fragments following treatment (shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy). Analysis was performed using 'metafor' in R and bias determined using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: From 273 articles, 18 papers (2,096 patients) had details of intervention rate for residual fragments. Aggregate intervention rates for ≤4 mm fragments rose from 19% (20 months) to 22% (50 months), while >4 mm fragments rose from 22% to 47%. Aggregate disease progression rates for ≤4 mm rose from 25% to 47% and >4 mm rose from 26% to 88%. However, there was substantial difference in definition of "disease progression." Meta-analysis comparing >4 mm against ≤4 mm fragments: intervention rate for >4 mm (vs ≤4 mm): OR=1.50 (95% CI 0.70-2.30), p <0.001, I2=67.6%, tau2=0.48, Cochran's Q=11.4 (p=0.02) and Egger's regression: z=3.11, p=0.002. Disease progression rate for >4 mm: OR=0.06 (95% CI -0.98-1.10), p=0.91, I2=53.0%, tau2=0.57, Cochran's Q=7.11 (p=0.07) and Egger's regression: z=-0.75, p=0.45. Bias analysis demonstrated a moderate risk. CONCLUSIONS: Larger post-treatment residual fragments are significantly more likely to require further intervention especially in the long term. Smaller fragments, although less likely to require further intervention, still carry that risk. Notably, there is no significant difference in disease progression between fragment sizes. Patients with residual fragments should be appropriately counselled and informed decision-making regarding further management should be done.

Original publication

DOI

10.1097/JU.0000000000001836

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Urol

Publication Date

09/2021

Volume

206

Pages

526 - 538

Keywords

lithotripsy, nephrolithotomy, percutaneous, treatment outcome, ureteroscopy, urolithiasis, Asymptomatic Diseases, Humans, Kidney Calculi, Lithotripsy, Nephrolithotomy, Percutaneous, Retreatment, Treatment Outcome, Ureteroscopy