Omer A Raheem1, Yash S Khandwala2, Roger L Sur3, Khurshid R Ghani4, John D Denstedt5. 1. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, CA, USA. 2. University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA. 3. Department of Urology, University of California San Diego Health, San Diego, CA, USA. Electronic address: rlsur@ucsd.edu. 4. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The recent evolution of management options for urolithiasis has presented a unique dilemma for the modern urologist. A comprehensive understanding of epidemiological trends along with current provider preferences in treating urinary stones would be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: To review trends in the prevalence, treatments, and costs of urolithiasis worldwide. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library Central search facility, Web of Science, and Google Scholar between 1986 and 2016. Keywords used for the search were "urolithiasis" and "prevalence; treatment; and cost". EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The incidence and prevalence of urinary stones are rising around the world, including regions that have historically had low rates of urolithiasis. Common theories explaining this trend involve climate warming, dietary changes, and obesity. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has been the preferred mode of treatment since its introduction in the 1980s. However, ureteroscopy (URS) has become increasingly popular for small stones regardless of location because of lower recurrence rates and costs. Developing countries have been slower to adopt URS technology and continue to use percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a steady rate. CONCLUSIONS: URS has recently challenged SWL as the treatment modality preferred for small upper urinary tract stones. In some cases it is less expensive but still highly effective. As the burden of stone disease increases worldwide, appropriate selection of stone removal therapies will continue to play an important role and will thus require further investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urinary stones are becoming more prevalent. Recent advances in technology have improved the management of this disease and have decreased costs.
CONTEXT: The recent evolution of management options for urolithiasis has presented a unique dilemma for the modern urologist. A comprehensive understanding of epidemiological trends along with current provider preferences in treating urinary stones would be beneficial. OBJECTIVE: To review trends in the prevalence, treatments, and costs of urolithiasis worldwide. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was performed using the MEDLINE database, the Cochrane Library Central search facility, Web of Science, and Google Scholar between 1986 and 2016. Keywords used for the search were "urolithiasis" and "prevalence; treatment; and cost". EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: The incidence and prevalence of urinary stones are rising around the world, including regions that have historically had low rates of urolithiasis. Common theories explaining this trend involve climate warming, dietary changes, and obesity. Shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) has been the preferred mode of treatment since its introduction in the 1980s. However, ureteroscopy (URS) has become increasingly popular for small stones regardless of location because of lower recurrence rates and costs. Developing countries have been slower to adopt URS technology and continue to use percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a steady rate. CONCLUSIONS: URS has recently challenged SWL as the treatment modality preferred for small upper urinary tract stones. In some cases it is less expensive but still highly effective. As the burden of stone disease increases worldwide, appropriate selection of stone removal therapies will continue to play an important role and will thus require further investigation. PATIENT SUMMARY: Urinary stones are becoming more prevalent. Recent advances in technology have improved the management of this disease and have decreased costs.
Authors: Steffen Lebentrau; Thomas Enzmann; Mike Lehsnau; Frank Christoph; Martin Schostak; Matthias May Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Maxim Avanesov; Julja Togmat; Mehtap Solmaz; Michael Gerhard Kaul; Azien Laqmani; Helena Guerreiro; Sarah Keller; Lars Weisbach; Gerhard Adam; Jin Yamamura Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sara Maskal; Rajat Jain; Donald Fedrigon; Emily Rose; Manoj Monga; Sri Sivalingam Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Parth M Patel; Alexander M Kandabarow; Eseosa Aiwerioghene; Enrique Blanco-Martinez; Spencer Hart; David J Leehey; Ahmer Farooq; Kristin G Baldea; Thomas M T Turk Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.370