Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Asymptomatic Renal Stones—to Treat or Not to Treat

  • Endourology (P Mucksavage, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

There are no current guidelines on the optimal management of asymptomatic renal stones. This review summarizes the current literature, focusing on more recent studies that have been done to grow the body of evidence on this topic.

Recent Findings

Recent studies have found that stone size is a significant predictor of need for future surgical intervention, with > 7 mm for pediatric population and > 4 mm for residual fragments after both PNL and ureteroscopy (URS). The role of URS has been better defined with a recent RCT concluding that URS and SWL had comparable outcomes for an asymptomatic lower pole stone < 1 cm.

Summary

The treatment decision for asymptomatic renal stones should take into consideration a variety of relevant patient and stone factors; however, ultimately, a shared decision-making approach should be used. In the properly counseled patient, active surveillance or prophylactic surgical intervention may be appropriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Scales CD, Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Urologic diseases in America project. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol. 2012;62(1):160–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC. Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol. 2005;173:848–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyce CJ, Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Kim DH, Bruce RJ. Prevalence of urolithiasis in asymptomatic adults: objective determination using low dose noncontrast computerized tomography. J Urol. 2010;183:1017–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. • Dropkin BM, Moses RA, Devang S, Pais VM Jr. The natural history of nonobstructing asymptomatic renal stones managed with active surveillance. J Urol. 2015;193:1265–9. Retrospective review of 110 patients with 160 renal stones, 72% remained asymptomatic with average follow up of over 3 years

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Glowacki LS, Beecroft ML, Cook RJ, Pahl D, Churchill DN. The natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis. J Urol. 1992;147(2):319–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kang HW, Lee SK, Kim WT, Kim YJ, Yun SJ, Lee SC, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic renal stones and prediction of stone related events. J Urol. 2013;189(50):1740–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Koh LT, Ng FC, Ng KK. Outcomes of long-term follow-up of patients with conservative management of asymptomatic renal calculi. BJU Int. 2012;109:622–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Burgher A, Beman M, Holtzman JL, Monga M. Progression of nephrolithiasis: long-term outcomes with observation of asymptomatic calculi. J Endourol. 2004;18:534–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldsmith ZG, Lipkin ME. When (and how) to surgically treat asymptomatic renal stones. Nat Rev Urol. 2012;9:315–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Telli O, Hamidi N, Bagci U, Demirbas A, Hascicek AM, Soygur T, et al. What happens to asymptomatic lower pole kidney stones smaller than 10 mm in children during watchful waiting? Pediatr Nephrol. 2017;32(5):853–7. Retrospective review of 242 pediatric patients with asymptomatic lower pole renal stones < 10 mm in size, estimated stone progression rate of 61.2%. Stone size > 7mm, renal anomalies, and cystine or struvite composition were statistically significant predictors of need for future surgical intervention

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. • Dos Santos J, Lopes RI, Veloso AO, Harvey E, Farhat WA, Papanikolaou F. Outcome analysis of asymptomatic lower pole stones in children. J Urol. 2016;195:1289–93. Retrospective review of 224 pediatric patients, reported a 53.6% rate of spontaneously passed stones, 25% remained asymptomatic and 21.4% ultimately required surgical intervention

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1153–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Inci K, Sahin A, Islamoglu E, Eren MT, Bakkaloglu M, Ozen H. Prospective long-term followup of patients with asymptomatic lower pole caliceal stones. J Urol. 2007;177:2189–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raman JD, Pearle MS. Management options for lower pole renal calculi. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18(2):214–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Omar M, Tarplin S, Brown R, Sivalingam S, Monga M. Shared decision making: why do patients choose ureteroscopy? Urolithiasis. 2016;44(2):167–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sarkissian C, Noble M, Li J, Monga M. Patient decision making for asymptomatic renal calculi: balancing benefit and risk. Urology. 2013;81:236–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):468–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Skolarikos A, Laguna MP, Alivizatos G, Kural AR, de la Rosette JJ. The role for active monitoring in urinary stones: a systematic review. J Endourol. 2010;24(6):923–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pearle MS, Goldfarb DS, Assimos DG, Curhan G, Denu-Ciocca CJ, Matlaga BR, et al. Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2014;192:316–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E, Akman T, Altinyay E, Baykal M, et al. A prospective randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol. 2010;183(4):1424–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keely FX Jr, Tilling K, Elves A, Menezes P, Wills M, Rao N, et al. Preliminary results of a randomized controlled trail of prophylactic shock wave lithotripsy for small asymptomatic renal calyceal stones. BJU Int 2001; 87 (1): 1–8.

  22. •• Sener NC, Bas O, Sener E, Zengin K, Ozturk U, Altunkol A, et al. Asymptomatic lower pole small renal stones: shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureteroscopy or observation? A prospective randomized trail. Urology. 2015;85:33–7. RCT randomizing patients with asymptomatic single lower pole stones <1cm to ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy, and observation. The stone free rate for URS was 92% and 90% for SWL after an average of 1.48±0.65 sessions. Observation group had a 12% rate of stone progression over 2 year follow-up

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. • Olvera-Posada D, Ali SN, Dion M, Alenezi H, Denstedt JD, Razvi H. Natural history of residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: evaluation of factors related to clinical events and intervention. Urology. 2016;97:46–50. Retrospective review of 44 out of 781 patients with residual fragments after PNL. Residual fragments > 4mm, and struvite or apatite composition, were associated with higher likelihood to require surgical intervention during mean follow up of 57.9 months

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. • Chew BH, Brotherhood HL, Sur RL, Wang AQ, Knudsen BE, Yong C, et al. Natural history, complications, and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: a report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol. 2016;195:982–6. A multicenter retrospective review of the natural history of asymptomatic residual fragments following ureteroscopy, including 232 patients. They reported that 56% of patients remained asymptomatic with a mean follow up of 16.8 months. 29% of patients required a secondary procedure. In addition, they concluded that residual fragment size > 4mm after ureteroscopy was associated with significantly higher rate of stone growth and need for re-intervention

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rebuck DA, Macejko A, Bhalani V, Ramos P, Nadler RB. The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology. 2011;77(3):564–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Urology, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Mail Code H055, 500 University Drive, PO Box 850, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA

    Necole M. Streeper

Authors
  1. Necole M. Streeper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Necole M. Streeper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Necole M. Streeper declares no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Endourology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Streeper, N.M. Asymptomatic Renal Stones—to Treat or Not to Treat. Curr Urol Rep 19, 29 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0782-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0782-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation