Introduction
Urolithiasis is a disease characterized by the formation of stones within the urinary tract, mostly in the kidney and ureter, although it may also affect the bladder and urethra. Stone disease can be classified based on the stone location and composition, or stratified based on etiology into infectious, noninfectious, genetic, or drug-induced (drug stones) categories.1 Urolithiasis is a substantial global concern. Its rising incidence is closely linked to modern dietary patterns, sedentary lifestyle, and the growing burden of metabolic disorders, such as obesity and diabetes.2 In a recent study, the prevalence of urolithiasis in Poland was estimated at 12.85%.3 Nutritional and lifestyle factors significantly influence the risk of stone formation by altering urinary composition and promoting salt supersaturation.4 Renal calculi often remain asymptomatic, and are detected during diagnostic workup of hematuria or other unrelated reasons.5 The condition ranges in severity from acute symptoms, such as renal colic-like pain, to chronic complications, including hypertension, hydronephrosis, and kidney disease.4 Beyond its clinical impact, urolithiasis contributes to psychological strain, reduced productivity, and substantial health care costs.6 In the United Kingdom, treatment expenses rival those incurred by patients with bladder and prostate cancers, while in the United States (US), annual costs are estimated to reach 30 billion USD by 2030.7,8 Given the significant impact of urolithiasis on public health, its high prevalence, and the substantial advances in diagnostic and therapeutic methods, the aim of this review is to present the current state of knowledge regarding the epidemiology, diagnostic approaches, and treatment strategies for urinary stone disease.
Epidemiology
Urolithiasis is a common disease, with estimated prevalence ranging between 1% and 20% in different populations.9 The variability in prevalence is attributed to a complex interplay of multiple influencing factors, predominantly geographical, cultural, climatic, dietary, genetic, and lifestyle-related.9
Based on a 2021 Global Burden of Disease Study,10 estimated incidence of urolithiasis was 106 million new diagnoses globally, with men accounting for approximately 67% of these cases. Growing prevalence of urolithaisis has been also observed worldwide, especially in developed countries. In the US, the prevalence of urolithiasis increased and is now estimated at 8.8%.11 In Europe, it is approximated that between 25 and 49 million individuals were living with symptomatic kidney stones in 2011.12 An increasing trend was noted in Iceland, with prevalence reaching 6.2%.2 In Germany, the rise in incidence was not so evident, as it progressed from 4% to 4.7% from 1979 to 2001, although in the older population (>65 years), the prevalence peaked at 9.5%. Similar trends were observed in Spain, with an increase from 4.2% in 1986 to 5.1% in 2007.12,13 In Poland, the prevalence of urolithiasis was estimated at 12.85%, with a significantly higher rate of approximately 16.87% found in the older population (>60 years).3 Notably, higher rates of urolithiasis have been observed outside of Europe, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where the prevalence is estimated at 20.1%.14,15 This may be attributed to higher ambient temperatures, a well-established risk factor for the disease.
The risk of recurrence depends on the individual risk of stone forming. It is estimated that about 50% of recurrent stone formers experience a single episode of recurrence over their lifetime. However, urolithiasis is characterized by high recurrence rates; nearly 60% of individuals experience renal colic-like pain symptoms 10 years after initial treatment.16 The recurrence rate is higher in individuals with specific stone compositions, in whom it can reach up to 82.4%.11
Pathophysiology and risk factors
Mechanism of stone formation
Urolithiasis develops when urinary solutes crystallize and gradually accumulate into stones. This process is heavily influenced by a range of factors, both inherited (eg, cystinuria) and environmental. Central to the formation of calculi is urinary supersaturation—a state where solute concentrations surpass their solubility threshold, leading to crystal nucleation, growth, and aggregation.17,18 The primary contributors to urinary stone disease are insufficient fluid intake and reduced urine output,19 whereas the 4 key biochemical abnormalities associated with stone formation include elevated urinary calcium (hypercalciuria), oxalate (hyperoxaluria), and uric acid (hyperuricosuria) levels, along with decreased citrate excretion (hypocitraturia).20 These aggregates can obstruct urinary flow, especially at anatomically narrow regions, such as the ureteropelvic junction (the site where the ureter crosses the iliac vessels) and the ureterovesical junction. Such blockages often result in hydronephrosis and provoke renal colic through ureteral stretching and inflammation driven by prostaglandin activity.
Types of stones and underlying mechanisms
Based on mineralogical composition, kidney stones can be divided into 5 main types: calcium oxalate (65.9%), carbapatite (15.6%), urate (12.4%), struvite (2.7%), and brushite (1.7%) stones.21,22 Several mechanisms have been described as responsible for the formation of the most prevalent stone type, that is, calcium oxalate stones. These include abnormal renal handling of calcium and oxalate, excessive urinary saturation, and structural predispositions, such as Randall plaques, that is, subepithelial calcifications found near the loops of Henle. There is also evidence suggesting that interstitial apatite deposits may act as an initiating point for stone development, though their role is still under investigation.23,24 Overall, 2 main theories have been proposed regarding stone formation: 1) the free particle theory, involving crystal aggregation in fluid, and 2) the fixed particle theory, involving growth on anchored plaques.25
Distinct etiologic mechanisms for individual stone types
Each type of kidney stone is associated with a distinct underlying etiologic mechanism, reflecting differences in metabolic, environmental, or genetic contributing factors. Calcium stones are often linked to conditions such as hyperparathyroidism, renal calcium wasting, idiopathic or absorptive hypercalciuria, low magnesium levels, and hypocitraturia.26 Uric acid stones form primarily in persistently acidic urine (pH <5.5), often in association with a high intake of purine-rich foods, malignancies, or gout.27 Struvite stones are typically associated with infections by urease-producing gram-negative bacteria, such as Proteus, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas. In contrast, Escherichia coli does not contribute to stone formation due to its lack of urease activity.28 Cystine stones are a result of a rare hereditary disorder affecting renal reabsorption of cystine and other dibasic amino acids.29
Medication and genetic influence
Various medications have also been linked to stone formation, particularly atazanavir, triamterene, sulfonamides, indinavir, and ephedrine.30-33 Additionally, genetic factors can predispose individuals to urolithiasis, especially through inherited defects in renal tubular function.34 A family history of nephrolithiasis significantly increases the risk of the disease by about 2.5 times,35 while individuals with a prior episode of stone disease face a 15% risk of recurrence within 1 year and up to 50% over a decade.36
Comorbid conditions and systemic associations
A range of chronic medical conditions have been identified as increasing the risk of stone formation. These include obesity, diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, and gout, all of which influence urinary chemistry and pH.37 Gastrointestinal diseases, particularly those associated with chronic diarrhea or malabsorption (eg, inflammatory bowel disease or status post–bariatric surgery), can increase urinary oxalate levels, further predisposing patients to calcium oxalate stones.38 Infections with urease-positive organisms increase urinary pH, creating favorable conditions for struvite stone formation.39
Dietary and lifestyle factors
Diet plays a central role in modulating the risk of kidney stone formation. Several dietary factors are strongly linked to increased incidence of the disease. Excessive sodium intake enhances urinary calcium excretion40; high consumption of animal protein elevates uric acid levels, reduces urinary citrate, and lowers urine pH41; and diets rich in oxalate-containing foods (eg, spinach, nuts) contribute to hyperoxaluria.42 Paradoxically, both very low and very high calcium intake can increase oxalate absorption, thereby raising the risk of stone formation.43 Additionally, regular consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with a 22%–33% higher incidence of nephrolithiasis.44 Conversely, certain dietary habits are protective against stone formation. Ensuring adequate fluid intake to produce at least 2 liters of urine daily is one of the most effective preventive measures.45 A moderate intake of dietary calcium, especially from dairy sources, helps reduce oxalate absorption.43 Diets rich in fruits, vegetables, and dietary fiber promote more alkaline urine and lower the stone risk.46 Additionally, consumption of caffeinated coffee has been associated with a reduced risk of stone formation.47 Although most fruit juices have minimal impact on the disease risk, lemon juice may be beneficial due to its high citrate content, while cranberry juice lacks consistent evidence of efficacy.48
Diagnostic methods
The diagnostic workup of suspected nephrolithiasis requires a structured and individualized approach that integrates clinical evaluation, targeted laboratory studies, and appropriate imaging modalities. The choice of diagnostic tools is informed by patient-specific factors, such as age, pregnancy status, body mass index (BMI), and the urgency of clinical presentation. The overarching goal is to achieve diagnostic accuracy while minimizing exposure to ionizing radiation and optimizing resource use.
A thorough initial evaluation plays a critical role in both diagnosing urolithiasis and identifying alternative or concurrent pathologies. Standard laboratory investigations commonly include: 1) urinalysis with microscopy: a primary diagnostic tool that often reveals hematuria, a hallmark of urinary calculi. The presence of leukocyte esterase, nitrites, or pyuria may indicate concomitant urinary tract infection49; 2) blood or urine human chorionic gonadotropin testing: these tests assist in identifying systemic inflammation, infection, renal function abnormalities, and electrolyte imbalances. In women of reproductive age, pregnancy must be excluded prior to imaging, as it directly influences the selection of safe diagnostic modalities; 3) serum levels of lactic acid, lipase, and amylase: these markers are useful in the differential diagnosis when nonurologic causes of abdominal pain, such as pancreatitis or bowel ischemia, are suspected; 4) blood cultures: recommended in patients exhibiting systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria, particularly in the context of potentially obstructed, infected stones, where urosepsis is a concern.
Imaging is indispensable in confirming the presence, size, and anatomical location of calculi, as well as in assessing for secondary signs, such as obstruction or infection. Selection of the imaging modality should balance diagnostic accuracy against patient safety.
Ultrasonography
Renal ultrasonography is frequently employed as the first-line imaging modality in populations where radiation exposure is contraindicated or undesirable, such as pregnant patients and children. It is widely available, cost-effective, and does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation.50 On ultrasound, stones are typically visualized as echogenic foci with posterior acoustic shadowing, whereas secondary signs, such as hydronephrosis, may support the diagnosis.49 Despite these advantages, ultrasonography has limitations. Sensitivity and specificity of this modality are 45% and 94%, respectively, for ureteral stones, and 45% and 88%, respectively, for renal stones.51,52
Abdominal radiography
The kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) plain radiograph is a rapid and inexpensive imaging option, often utilized in emergency settings. However, sensitivity and specificity of this modality are limited and estimated at 44%–74%.53 Therefore, according to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urolithiasis, it should not be performed if noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) is planned.54 KUB radiography is the most effective in identifying radiopaque stones composed of calcium oxalate or phosphate but fails to visualize radiolucent stones, such as those composed of uric acid or cystine.55 Its primary role is in longitudinal surveillance of known stone burden, particularly in patients managed conservatively or followed up after intervention.
Noncontrast computed tomography
NCCT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis remains the gold standard for diagnosing nephrolithiasis in nonpregnant adults.56 It provides high diagnostic accuracy, with sensitivity ranging from 95% to 100% and specificity between 92% and 100%.57,58 Not only can NCCT confirm the presence of calculi regardless of their composition (with the exception of indinavir stones59), but it also delineates stone size, location, and associated complications, such as hydronephrosis or perinephric stranding. Attenuation values (expressed in Hounsfield units) offer additional information that may guide therapeutic decision-making, including the likelihood of success with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL).
Nevertheless, the use of NCCT must be judicious, particularly in recurrent stone formers, due to cumulative radiation exposure. Low-dose NCCT protocols have emerged as a viable alternative.60 For patients with BMI below 30 kg/m2, low-dose NCCT has demonstrated sensitivity of 86% for identifying ureteral stones smaller than 3 mm, and 100% sensitivity for stones larger than 3 mm.61 However, diagnostic reliability decreases in patients with BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 due to image degradation.
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not routinely used in the evaluation of urolithiasis, but may be considered in specific clinical contexts where radiation exposure is contraindicated (eg, pregnancy). Urinary stones on MRI appear as filling defects.62 Three-Tesla (T) MRI has not been assessed for safety in pregnancy; the use of 1.5T MRI is currently advised.63 Gadolinium contrast agents are generally avoided during pregnancy due to potential toxicity to the embryo. The high cost, limited availability, and relatively long acquisition times restrict the utility of MRI in acute settings, although it may be valuable as a secondary imaging modality in pregnant or pediatric patients when ultrasonography is inconclusive.64,65
Treatment methods
Urolithiasis management is guided by symptom severity, stone size and location, and patient-specific factors. Acute presentations often involve flank pain, nausea, and vomiting—frequently due to ureteral obstruction.66 Immediate management focuses on analgesia, with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including metamizole and paracetamol) being the first-line treatment.67 Opioids seem to be less effective in pain management in renal colic.68 Nausea is addressed with antiemetics, such as metoclopramide. Hydration may correct volume depletion but does not accelerate stone passage.69
Medical expulsive therapy
Medical expulsive therapy facilitates spontaneous stone passage, particularly for ureteral stones 5–10 mm in diameter. Commonly used agents include α-blockers (eg, tamsulosin, silodosin), calcium channel blockers (eg, nifedipine), and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.70 Though α-blockers are used off-label, evidence supports their efficacy,71 and they are recommended for medical expulsive therapy by the EAU guidelines on urolithiasis, especially for distal stones greater than 5 mm.54
Stones up to 5 mm in diameter have an approximately 90% chance of spontaneous passage within 40 days.72 In a study by Yallappa et al,73 spontaneous passage occurred in around 49% of upper ureteral stones, 58% of midureteral stones, and 68% of those located distally. In terms of size, nearly 75% of calculi measuring less than 5 mm passed without intervention, as compared with 62% of those exceeding 5 mm. The average time to stone passage was around 17 days, with a range spanning from 6 to 29 days.
Indications for emergency intervention
Prompt urologic evaluation and decompression are warranted in the presence of: 1) obstructive uropathy with fever or sepsis, 2) intractable pain or persistent vomiting, 3) a solitary or transplanted kidney with obstruction, 4) bilateral upper urinary tract obstruction or rising creatinine levels, and 5) obstructive pyelonephritis or urosepsis.
These cases require urgent drainage via a ureteral stent or nephrostomy tube. As recognized by the EAU guidelines, there is no evidence suggesting superiority of one method over another. In addition, whereas complications of nephrostomy tube placing have been widely described, there is no high-quality evidence on complications following JJ stent placement.74 Nephrostomy is often preferred in septic individuals, whereas JJ stent placement is preferred in patients on anticuagulation or those with obesity. Definitive stone management is deferred until clinical stabilization.
Surgical management
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy
ESWL is a noninvasive procedure using externally applied shockwaves to fragment stones, typically guided by ultrasonography or fluoroscopy. It is best suited for renal or proximal ureteral stones smaller than 2 cm, except for stones located in lower poles of the kidney,75 with success rates of 60% to 80%.76 Stones larger than 2 cm are best managed with percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL), as ESWL typically necessitates multiple sessions and carries a higher risk of ureteral obstruction, such as colic or steinstrasse, often requiring additional interventions.77
Contraindications to ESWL include active infection, pregnancy,78 coagulopathy,79 skeletal deformities, distal obstruction, significant obesity, and vascular anomalies near the stone (aneurysm).80 Postprocedural stenting may be required to prevent steinstrasse (ureteral obstruction by stone fragments). ESWL is associated with a lower overall complication rate than PNL and ureteroscopy (URS).81
Ureteroscopy and retrograde intrarenal surgery
URS involves endoscopic access through the urethra (retrograde access) to treat ureteral and renal stones. Percutaneous, antegrade placement of a flexible URS is also feasible and used in selected cases, such as large, impacted stones in the proximal ureter.82 It provides high stone-free rates and is preferred for distal stones or in patients on anticoagulation.83 For renal stones larger than 2 cm, the overall stone-free rate reached 91%, requiring an average of 1.45 procedures per patient. Additionally, 4.5% of complications were classified as more severe than Clavien–Dindo grade 3.84 URS is performed under fluoroscopy guidance, and a flexible guiding wire should be placed in the collecting system of the kidney. If placement of the instrument in the ureter is not possible, JJ stent insertion followed by URS is an option.85 Extended surgical duration in URS is associated with higher complication rates, highlighting the need to limit operative time to under 90 minutes.86 Holmium lasers are the standard technology for lithotripsy,87 though thulium fiber lasers are gaining in popularity.88 Ureteral access sheaths aid in complex or prolonged procedures.89
Routine stenting before or after uncomplicated URS is generally not necessary and may increase postoperative morbidity and costs.90 However, prestenting can improve stone-free rates and reduce intraoperative complications.91 Stents should still be used in high-risk patients or in uncertain cases to prevent complications and avoid emergencies. Although the optimal stenting duration is unclear, most urologists favor leaving the stent in place for 1 to 2 weeks; treatment with α-blockers can help improve stent tolerability.92 URS is appropriate for stones larger than 2 cm when ESWL or PNL are contraindicated. Complications after URS occur in 9%–25% of cases.72 They are mostly minor, with urosepsis seen in up to 5% of patients, and serious events, such as ureteral avulsion, affecting less than 1% of indiviuals.93 Key risk factors include prior perforation, positive urine cultures, and prolonged surgery.86 Preventive measures include prophylactic antibiotics, minimizing stent and procedure time, treating urinary tract infections, and careful planning in complex cases.94 There are no established contraindications to URS.
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy
PNL is the gold standard for managing large (>2 cm) renal calculi, including staghorn stones. It entails percutaneous access to the collecting system, often under CT or ultrasound guidance. Both supine and prone positions are acceptable. Standard access sheath size is 24–30 French (Fr). Mini-PNL (12–22 Fr) offers similar efficacy to the standard procedure, with reduced morbidity.95 Furthermore, even smaller sheaths (<18 Fr), originally designed for pediatric use, are increasingly used in the adult population.95,96 Flexible nephroscopy helps retrieve residual stone fragments. Tubeless (without placing a nephrostomy tube) and totally tubeless techniques (without a nephrostomy tube or ureteral stent) may reduce postoperative pain and shorten recovery.97 Intraoperative urine cultures are valuable for predicting the infection risk and facilitating treatment choice in the case of postsurgery sepsis.98 Contraindications include pregnancy, uncorrected bleeding disorders, untreated urinary tract infections, and malignancy involving the access tract or a potentially malignant renal tumor. A systematic review encompassing nearly 12 000 patients reported the following complication rates associated with PNL: fever in 10.8% of cases, blood transfusion in 7%, and thoracic complications in 1.5%. More severe complications, such as sepsis, organ injury, embolization, urinoma, and death were reported in less than 1% of patients.99
Open or laparoscopic surgery
Rarely indicated, these approaches are reserved for patients in whom less invasive methods were ineffective, or simultaneously during other urinary tract surgeries.54
Conclusions
Urolithiasis is a prevalent and increasingly burdensome condition influenced by lifestyle, metabolic, and environmental factors. Accurate diagnosis relies on a combination of clinical assessment, laboratory tests, and appropriate imaging, with low-dose NCCT being the gold standard in most cases. Treatment strategies range from conservative management and medical expulsive therapy to minimally invasive procedures, such as ESWL, URS, and PNL, and the choise of an appropriate method must me individualized. Advances in surgical techniques and supportive care have significantly improved patient outcomes, but recurrence prevention through lifestyle and dietary modification remains a cornerstone of long-term management.
Mikolaj Przydacz, MD, PhD, PGDip, FEBU, Department of Urology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, ul. Jakubowskiego 2, 30-688 Kraków, Poland, phone: +48 12 424 79 50, email: mikolaj.przydacz@uj.edu.pl
June 24, 2025.
July 16, 2025.
July 29, 2025.
None.
None.
Writing—original draft preparation: JS; Writing review and editing: JS, PC, and MP. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Artificial intelligence was not used in the preparation of this manuscript.
None declared.
Szymanski JR, Chlosta P, Przydacz M. Epidemiology, diagnostics, and therapeutic strategies in urolithiasis: a comprehensive review. Prz Lek Jagiellonian Med Rev. 2025; 77: 19999. doi:10.20452/jmr.2025.19999
- 1.
- Wang L, Feng C, Ding G, et al. Association study of reported significant loci at 5q35.3, 7p14.3, 13q14.1 and 16p12.3 with urolithiasis in Chinese Han Ethnicity. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 45766.Crossref
- 2.
- Indridason OS, Birgisson S, Edvardsson VO, et al. Epidemiology of kidney stones in Iceland: a population-based study. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2006; 40: 215-220.
- 3.
- Szymanski J, Chlosta M, Dudek P, et al. Prevalence, correlates, and treatment behaviors for urolithiasis and renal colic-like pain symptoms at the population level in Poland. Sci Rep. 2025; 15: 10827.Crossref
- 4.
- Zhe M, Hang Z. Nephrolithiasis as a risk factor of chronic kidney disease: a meta-analysis of cohort studies with 4,770,691 participants. Urolithiasis. 2017; 45: 441-448.
- 5.
- Boyce CJ, Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography. J Urol. 2010; 183: 1017-1021.Crossref
- 6.
- Ní Néill E, Richards HL, Hennessey D, et al. Psychological distress in patients with urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol. 2023; 209: 58-70.
- 7.
- Geraghty RM, Cook P, Walker V, Somani BK. 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 Int. 2020; 125: 586-594.Crossref
- 8.
- Antonelli JA, Maalouf NM, Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Use of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey to calculate the impact of obesity and diabetes on cost and prevalence of urolithiasis in 2030. Eur Urol. 2014; 66: 724-729.Crossref
- 9.
- Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, et al. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017; 35: 1301-1320.
- 10.
- GBD 2021 Urolithiasis Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis in 204 countries and territories, 2000-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. eClinicalMedicine. 2024: 78: 102924.Crossref
- 11.
- Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012; 62: 160-165.
- 12.
- Osther PJS. Epidemiology of kidney stones in the European Union. In: Talati JJ, Tiselius H-G, Albala DM, YE Z, eds. Urolithiasis Basic Sci Clin Pract. London: Springer; 2012; 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4387-1_1. Accessed Jun 13, 2025.Crossref
- 13.
- Hesse A, Brändle E, Wilbert D, et al. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol. 2003; 44: 709-713.
- 14.
- López M, Hoppe B. History, epidemiology and regional diversities of urolithiasis. Pediatr Nephrol. 2010; 25: 49-59.Crossref
- 15.
- Ramello A, Vitale C, Marangella M. Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis. J Nephrol. 2000; 13 (Suppl 3): 45-50.Crossref
- 16.
- Strohmaier WL. Course of calcium stone disease without treatment. What can we expect? Eur Urol. 2000; 37: 339-344.Crossref
- 17.
- Aggarwal KP, Narula S, Kakkar M, Tandon C. Nephrolithiasis: molecular mechanism of renal stone formation and the critical role played by modulators. BioMed Res Int. 2013; 2013: 292953.Crossref
- 18.
- Hamamoto S, Taguchi K, Fujii Y. Molecular mechanism of renal stone formation. Clin Calcium. 2011; 21: 1481-1487.Crossref
- 19.
- Siener R, Hesse A. Fluid intake and epidemiology of urolithiasis. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003; 57 (Suppl 2): 47-51.Crossref
- 20.
- Aune D, Mahamat-Saleh Y, Norat T, Riboli E. Body fatness, diabetes, physical activity and risk of kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018; 33: 1033-1047.Crossref
- 21.
- Ye Z, Zeng G, Yang H, et al. The status and characteristics of urinary stone composition in China. BJU Int. 2020; 125: 801-809.
- 22.
- Parmar MS. Kidney stones. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1420-1424.
- 23.
- Evan AP, Coe FL, Lingeman JE, et al. Mechanism of formation of human calcium oxalate renal stones on Randall’s plaque. Anat Rec (Hoboken). 2007; 290: 1315-1323.
- 24.
- Shadman A, Bastani B. Kidney calculi: pathophysiology and as a systemic disorder. Iran J Kidney Dis. 2017; 11: 180-191.
- 25.
- Khan SR, Pearle MS, Robertson WG, et al. Kidney stones. Nat Rev Dis Primer. 2016; 2: 16008.Crossref
- 26.
- Pokhrel B, Leslie SW, Levine SN. Primary hyperparathyroidism. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK441895/. Accessed Jun 17, 2025.Crossref
- 27.
- Liebman SE, Taylor JG, Bushinsky DA. Uric acid nephrolithiasis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2007; 9: 251-257.Crossref
- 28.
- Griffith DP, Musher DM, Itin C. Urease. The primary cause of infection-induced urinary stones. Invest Urol. 1976; 13: 346-350.
- 29.
- Saravakos P, Kokkinou V, Giannatos E. Cystinuria: current diagnosis and management. Urology. 2014; 83: 693-699.Crossref
- 30.
- Daudon M, Frochot V, Bazin D, Jungers P. Drug-induced kidney stones and crystalline nephropathy: pathophysiology, prevention and treatment. Drugs. 2018; 78: 163-201.
- 31.
- Sighinolfi MC, Eissa A, Bevilacqua L, et al. Drug-induced urolithiasis in pediatric patients. Paediatr Drugs. 2019; 21: 323-344.
- 32.
- Carr MC, Prien EL, Babayan RK. Triamterene nephrolithiasis: renewed attention is warranted. J Urol. 1990; 144: 1339-1340.
- 33.
- Roedel MM, Nakada SY, Penniston KL. Sulfamethoxazole-induced sulfamethoxazole urolithiasis: a case report. BMC Urol. 2021; 21: 133.
- 34.
- Buckalew VM. Nephrolithiasis in renal tubular acidosis. J Urol. 1989; 141: 731-737.Crossref
- 35.
- Curhan GC, Willett WC, Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ. Family history and risk of kidney stones. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1997; 8: 1568-1573.
- 36.
- Rule AD, Bergstralh EJ, Melton LJ, et al. Kidney stones and the risk for chronic kidney disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4: 804-811.
- 37.
- Abate N, Chandalia M, Cabo-Chan AV, et al. The metabolic syndrome and uric acid nephrolithiasis: novel features of renal manifestation of insulin resistance. Kidney Int. 2004; 65: 386-392.Crossref
- 38.
- Espino-Grosso PM, Canales BK. Kidney stones after bariatric surgery: risk assessment and mitigation. Bariatr Surg Pract Patient Care. 2017; 12: 3-9.
- 39.
- Torzewska A, Bednarska K, Różalski A. Influence of various uropathogens on crystallization of urine mineral components caused by Proteus mirabilis. Res Microbiol. 2019; 170: 80-85.Crossref
- 40.
- Massey LK, Whiting SJ. Dietary salt, urinary calcium, and kidney stone risk. Nutr Rev. 1995; 53: 131-139.Crossref
- 41.
- Taylor EN, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC. Dietary factors and the risk of incident kidney stones in men: new insights after 14 years of follow-up. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2004; 15: 3225-3232.Crossref
- 42.
- Mitchell T, Kumar P, Reddy T, et al. Dietary oxalate and kidney stone formation. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2019; 316: F409-F413.
- 43.
- Taylor EN, Curhan GC. Dietary calcium from dairy and nondairy sources, and risk of symptomatic kidney stones. J Urol. 2013; 190: 1255-1259.
- 44.
- Ferraro PM, Taylor EN, Gambaro G, Curhan GC. Soda and other beverages and the risk of kidney stones. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2013; 8: 1389-1395.
- 45.
- Borghi L, Meschi T, Amato F, Briganti A, et al. Urinary volume, water and recurrences in idiopathic calcium nephrolithiasis: a 5-year randomized prospective study. J Urol. 1996; 155: 839-843.Crossref
- 46.
- Ferraro PM, Bargagli M, Trinchieri A, Gambaro G. Risk of kidney stones: influence of dietary factors, dietary patterns, and vegetarian-vegan diets. Nutrients. 2020; 12: 779.Crossref
- 47.
- Ferraro PM, Taylor EN, Gambaro G, Curhan GC. Caffeine intake and the risk of kidney stones. Am J Clin Nutr. 2014; 100: 1596-1603.
- 48.
- Kessler T, Jansen B, Hesse A. Effect of blackcurrant-, cranberry- and plum juice consumption on risk factors associated with kidney stone formation. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2002; 56: 1020-1023.Crossref
- 49.
- Gottlieb M, Long B, Koyfman A. The evaluation and management of urolithiasis in the ED: a review of the literature. Am J Emerg Med. 2018; 36: 699-706.
- 50.
- Mandeville JA, Gnessin E, Lingeman JE. Imaging evaluation in the patient with renal stone disease. Semin Nephrol. 2011; 31: 254-258.
- 51.
- Ray AA, Ghiculete D, Pace KT, Honey RJD. Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology. 2010; 76: 295-300.
- 52.
- Smith-Bindman R, Aubin C, Bailitz J, et al. Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 1100-1110.
- 53.
- Kennish SJ, Bhatnagar P, Wah TM, et al. Is the KUB radiograph redundant for investigating acute ureteric colic in the non-contrast enhanced computed tomography era? Clin Radiol. 2008; 63: 1131-1135.Crossref
- 54.
- European Association of Urology (EAU). Non-Oncology Guidelines. Urolithiasis. 2024. https://uroweb.org/guideline/urolithiasis/. Accessed December 2024.
- 55.
- Kim SC, Burns EK, Lingeman JE, et al. Cystine calculi: correlation of CT-visible structure, CT number, and stone morphology with fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res. 2007; 35: 319-324.Crossref
- 56.
- Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, Haines T. The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Ann Emerg Med. 2002; 40: 280-286.Crossref
- 57.
- Dalrymple NC, Verga M, Anderson KR, et al. The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain. J Urol. 1998; 159: 735-740.
- 58.
- Colistro R, Torreggiani WC, Lyburn ID, et al. Unenhanced helical CT in the investigation of acute flank pain. Clin Radiol. 2002; 57: 435-441.
- 59.
- Wu DS, Stoller ML. Indinavir urolithiasis. Curr Opin Urol. 2000; 10: 557-561.Crossref
- 60.
- Pendem S. Effectiveness of low dose over standard dose CT for detection of urolithiasis: a systematic review. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2020; 14: 4447-4451.
- 61.
- Poletti P-A, Platon A, Rutschmann OT, et al. Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 927-933.Crossref
- 62.
- Roy C, Saussine C, LeBras Y, et al. Assessment of painful ureterohydronephrosis during pregnancy by MR urography. Eur Radiol. 1996; 6: 334-338.
- 63.
- Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 1447-1474.
- 64.
- Brisbane W, Bailey MR, Sorensen MD. An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques. Nat Rev Urol. 2016; 13: 654-662.Crossref
- 65.
- Masselli G, Derme M, Bernieri MG, et al. Stone disease in pregnancy: imaging-guided therapy. Insights Imaging. 2014; 5: 691-696.
- 66.
- Patti L, Leslie SW. Acute renal colic. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK431091/. Accessed Jun 18, 2025.Crossref
- 67.
- Pathan SA, Mitra B, Cameron PA. A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol in the treatment of acute renal colic. Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 583-595.Crossref
- 68.
- Pathan SA, Mitra B, Straney LD, et al. Delivering safe and effective analgesia for management of renal colic in the emergency department: a double-blind, multigroup, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387: 1999-2007.Crossref
- 69.
- Springhart WP, Marguet CG, Sur RL, et al. Forced versus minimal intravenous hydration in the management of acute renal colic: a randomized trial. J Endourol. 2006; 20: 713-716.Crossref
- 70.
- Dellabella M, Milanese G, Muzzonigro G. Medical-expulsive therapy for distal ureterolithiasis: randomized prospective study on role of corticosteroids used in combination with tamsulosin-simplified treatment regimen and health-related quality of life. Urology. 2005; 66: 712-715.Crossref
- 71.
- Hsu Y-P, Hsu C-W, Bai C-H, et al. Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS One. 2018; 13: e0203035.Crossref
- 72.
- Preminger GM, Tiselius H-G, Assimos DG, et al. 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. Eur Urol. 2007; 52: 1610-1631.
- 73.
- Yallappa S, Amer T, Jones P, et al. Natural history of conservatively managed ureteral stones: analysis of 6600 patients. J Endourol. 2018; 32: 371-379.
- 74.
- Ramsey S, Robertson A, Ablett MJ, et al. Evidence-based drainage of infected hydronephrosis secondary to ureteric calculi. J Endourol. 2010; 24: 185-189.
- 75.
- Zheng C, Yang H, Luo J, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1-2 cm: a meta-analysis. Urolithiasis. 2015; 43: 549-556.Crossref
- 76.
- Romero ÁJ, Acón DL, Flores FQ, et al. IP08-01 – is it safe and effective to increase the total accumulated energy by increasing the number of shock waves per session in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A prospective randomized study. J Urol. 2025; 213: e415.Crossref
- 77.
- Wiesenthal JD, Ghiculete D, Honey RJD, Pace KT. A comparison of treatment modalities for renal calculi between 100 and 300 mm2: are shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy equivalent? J Endourol. 2011; 25: 481-485.Crossref
- 78.
- Ohmori K, Matsuda T, Horii Y, Yoshida O. Effects of shock waves on the mouse fetus. J Urol. 1994; 151: 255-258.Crossref
- 79.
- Streem SB, Yost A. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in patients with bleeding diatheses. J Urol. 1990; 144: 1347-1348.
- 80.
- Carey SW, Streem SB. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for patients with calcified ipsilateral renal arterial or abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Urol. 1992; 148: 18-20.
- 81.
- Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol. 2005; 173: 2005-2009.Crossref
- 82.
- Moufid K, Abbaka N, Touiti D, et al. Large impacted upper ureteral calculi: a comparative study between retrograde ureterolithotripsy and percutaneous antegrade ureterolithotripsy in the modified lateral position. Urol Ann. 2013; 5: 140-146.Crossref
- 83.
- Sharaf A, Amer T, Somani BK, Aboumarzouk OM. Ureteroscopy in patients with bleeding diatheses, anticoagulated, and on anti-platelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Endourol. 2017; 31: 1217-1225.Crossref
- 84.
- Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B, et al. Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (URSL) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep. 2015; 16: 54.Crossref
- 85.
- Ambani SN, Faerber GJ, Roberts WW, et al. Ureteral stents for impassable ureteroscopy. J Endourol. 2013; 27: 549-553.
- 86.
- Lane J, Whitehurst L, Hameed BMZ, et al. Correlation of operative time with outcomes of ureteroscopy and stone treatment: a systematic review of literature. Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21: 17.Crossref
- 87.
- Leijte JAP, Oddens JR, Lock TMTW. Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol. 2008; 22: 257-260.
- 88.
- Martov AG, Ergakov DV, Guseynov M, et al. Clinical comparison of super pulse thulium fiber laser and high-power holmium laser for ureteral stone management. J Endourol. 2021; 35: 795-800.Crossref
- 89.
- Lima A, Reeves T, Geraghty R, et al. Impact of ureteral access sheath on renal stone treatment: prospective comparative non-randomised outcomes over a 7-year period. World J Urol. 2020; 38: 1329-1333.Crossref
- 90.
- Seklehner S, Sievert K-D, Lee R, et al. A cost analysis of stenting in uncomplicated semirigid ureteroscopic stone removal. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017; 49: 753-761.
- 91.
- Assimos D, Crisci A, Culkin D, et al. Preoperative JJ stent placement in ureteric and renal stone treatment: results from the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society (CROES) ureteroscopy (URS) Global Study. BJU Int. 2016; 117: 648-654.Crossref
- 92.
- Lamb AD, Vowler SL, Johnston R, et al. Meta-analysis showing the beneficial effect of α-blockers on ureteric stent discomfort. BJU Int. 2011; 108: 1894-902.
- 93.
- Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, et al. Risk factors for urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2021; 35: 991-1000.Crossref
- 94.
- Chugh S, Pietropaolo A, Montanari E, et al. Predictors of urinary infections and urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review from EAU Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS). Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21: 16.Crossref
- 95.
- Ruhayel Y, Tepeler A, Dabestani S, et al. Tract sizes in miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review from the European Association of Urology Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel. Eur Urol. 2017; 72: 220-235.Crossref
- 96.
- Zeng G, Cai C, Duan X, et al. Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a noninferior modality to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 20-40 mm renal calculi: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol. 2021; 79: 114-121.Crossref
- 97.
- Garofalo M, Pultrone CV, Schiavina R, et al. Tubeless procedure reduces hospitalization and pain after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: results of a multivariable analysis. Urolithiasis. 2013; 41: 347-353.Crossref
- 98.
- Liu M, Chen J, Gao M, et al. Preoperative midstream urine cultures vs renal pelvic urine culture or stone culture in predicting systemic inflammatory response syndrome and urosepsis after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endourol. 2021; 35: 1467-1478.Crossref
- 99.
- Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, et al. Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol. 2012; 61: 146-158.