Search

Kidney stones, like cardiovascular diseases and diabetes mellitus, affect a large number of people. Patients suffer from acute pain, repeated hospitalizations and associated secondary diseases, such as arterial hypertension and renal insufficiency. This results in considerable costs for the society and its health care system. The recurrence rate is as high as 50%. The registry for RECurrent URolithiasis (RECUR) aims to fill existing evidence gaps. The prospective and longitudinal RECUR registry is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Science (BMBF). It is based on the digital infrastructure of the German Medical Informatics Initiative (MII). RECUR aims to include patients that have suffered from more than one stone occurrence and treated at any one of the ten participating university hospitals of the MIRACUM consortium. The intention is to obtain new information on risk factors and to evaluate different diagnosis and treatment algorithms. Along with the data form the patient's Electronic Health Records (EHR), the RECUR project will also collect Patient Reported Outcomes data from patients with recurrent kidney stones. These data will be collected at participating sites using digital questionnaires via a smartphone app. These data will be merged with medical data from the hospital information systems and saved in the MII research data repositories. The RECUR registry has a model character due to its fully federated, digital approach. This allows the recruitment of many patients, the collection of a wide range of data and their processing with low administrative and personnel costs., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Urolithiasis is a common diagnosis in urology. New technologies offer a variety of diagnostic and therapy and consequently display a financial burden on healthcare systems. Hence, clinical practice guidelines (CPG) are essential to implement evidence-based medicine and assure a standard of care considering limited resources. To date, there is no evidence of the use and adherence to CPG on urolithiasis., Material and Methods: Therefore, we performed a cross-sectional study to analyze the use of CPG on urolithiasis. Data collection was carried out by a questionnaire given to 400 German urologists. The survey included use and adherence to guidelines, evaluation of the clinical situation, therapy spectrum, and workplace. In total, 150 (37%) questionnaires were received and included in our survey. Statistics were performed by SPSS using Chi-quadrat test/Fisher's exact test., Results: In our study, urologists were office based, hospital affiliated, non-academic, or academic centers in 53%, 32%, 16% and 5%, respectively. In 74% and 70%, urologists adhere to CPG in diagnostic and therapy. Interestingly, workplace and therapy spectrum determines the use of different CPG (p = 0.01; p = 0.022). Academic urologists were more likely to use international CPG of EAU (40%), while outpatient urologists significantly orientated on national CPG (46%). 86% of urologists with high volume of urolithiasis practice interventions in contrast to 53% in low volume (p = 0.001). More than 80% of urologists use short versions and app version of CPG., Conclusion: We firstly describe compliance and the use of CPG on urolithiasis. EAU and DGU present the most commonly used CPG. Short version and app version of CPG find frequent clinical utilization., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Approximately 1% of urolithiasis cases in Germany affect children. Interdisciplinary groups have agreed on national and international guidelines for children to recommend appropriate treatment pathways. The aim of this retrospective and preliminary study is to analyze whether adherence to current guidelines for pediatric stone disease in southwestern Germany is feasible., Methods: During 2014 to 2017 24 children and adolescents (nine female, 15 male, median age 9.7 years), were treated for symptomatic urolithiasis in our institutions. We retrospectively collected clinical and operative courses. Clinical pathways were compared to previous guideline recommendations of the EAU 2014 and the German S2k guideline 2015., Results: 17 of the 24 patients were treated according to guideline recommendations (71%). Non-adherency was based on parental decisions in two and technical/medical considerations in five cases. In 11 children (45.8%) secondary or adjunctive treatments were necessary, in three of the seven non-adherently treated (43%) and in eight of the 17 adherently treated children (47%)., Conclusion: Our daily treatment approach seems to comply well with current pediatric stone guidelines. Nevertheless, guideline-non-adherent decision making emphasizes their strength and limitations, as specific clinical situations in children may require an individual treatment plan, as non-predictable conditions may occur.

Background and Method: Prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing in industrialized countries--in both adults and children, representing a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge. Risk-adapted diagnostic imaging currently means assessment with maximized sensitivity and specificity together with minimal radiation exposure. In clinical routine, imaging is performed by sonography, unenhanced computed tomography (NCCT) or intravenous urography (IVU) as well as plain kidney-ureter-bladder (KUB) radiographs., Aim: The aim of the present review is a critical guideline-based and therapy-aligned presentation of diagnostic imaging procedures for optimized treatment of urolithiasis considering the specifics in children and pregnant women.

Particularly in the urological consultation sessions collection of 24 h urine samples is required to evaluate the metabolic risk factors for urolith formation. To ensure a yield from urinalysis of sufficiently high quality and to minimize the number of potential error sources, correctly performed preanalytical procedures are required. If certain basic quality criteria for the collection procedures are not being followed false data can be determined and the clinical interpretation based on that analysis will result in a wrong rating of the true metabolic status of patients. This article provides practical, feasible and proven solutions in an encouraging, motivating and clear way to ensure that at least the most important steps for a correct urine collection are being taken. The preanalytical requirements for the determination of other urinary parameters which are not in the direct focus of urolithiasis treatment will not be covered by this article.

Background: In elderly and multimorbid patients urosepsis is a particularly serious condition with a high mortality. Whether a secondary therapy for an underlying stone disease after -initial sepsis treatment improves the prognosis of these patients has not been systematically investigated. We retrospectively reviewed the clinical course of elderly and multimorbid patients with urosepsis regarding the frequency of rhospitalisation and sepsis recurrence after initial and subsequent therapy., Patients and Methods: Patients with and without urolithiasis and urosepsis were compared. Inclusion criteria were multimorbidity, defined by an ASA score (≥2) or a Charlson score (≥3) and age (≥60 years), and general sepsis features. Both groups (patients with urolithiasis [U+] and patients without urolithiasis [U-]) did not differ in terms of demographic data. We investigated the influence of the primary sepsis therapy and secondary stone treatment on the incidence of rehospitalisation and sepsis recurrence rate., Results: The incidence of rehospitalisation in stone patients (U+) with and without therapy did not differ (22.1% vs. 21%), while the occurrence of urosepsis was lower in treated patients (0% vs. 8.7%). Rehospitalisation in stone patients was generally less common than in patients without urolithiasis (U+ 21.6%, U- 44.4%). Recurrences of sepsis were higher in patients without stone disease (U+ 4.35%, U- 8.9%). If the subpopulation with successful stone therapy was extracted from the U+ group, the difference disappeared (U+ 8.7%, U- 8.9%)., Conclusions: Stone treatment after initial urosepsis therapy reduces the incidence of recurrent sepsis (0% vs. 8.7%). Patients without underlying urolithiasis (U-) have a similar risk of sepsis recurrence as urolithiasis patients without secondary stone treatment. A complete stone clearance should be pursued in multimorbid or elderly patients with urosepsis to reduce secondary morbidity., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)