Purpose: Many major guidelines across the globe address the medical and surgical management of urolithiasis. We elected to compare and contrast the recommendations among the 5 most highly cited guidelines on stone disease to offer insights on where evidence has created a consensus and where there remains ongoing controversy and hence a need for the pursuit of studies that will provide a higher level of evidence.
Materials and methods: We reviewed the American Urological Association 2019 medical and 2016 surgical guidelines, the 2016 Canadian Urological Association guidelines, the 2020 European Association of Urology guidelines, the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the 2019 Urological Association of Asia guidelines. Tables correlating guideline statements by topic were created, and a comparative analysis was conducted to ascertain consensus and discordance.
Results: Comparative analysis of recommendations from the American Urological Association guidelines to the Canadian Urological Association, European Association of Urology, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines and Urological Association of Asia revealed a high consensus surrounding the medical management of stones. In terms of the surgical management of stones, there is high consensus regarding the treatment of ureteral stones including medical expulsive therapy using alpha blockers, not prestenting for uncomplicated ureteroscopy and employment of either ureteroscopy or shockwave lithotripsy as first line treatment. There is high consensus among the American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Urological Association of Asia guidelines regarding renal stone treatment. The Canadian Urological Association does not have guidelines on the management of renal stones. Unlike the American Urological Association and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Canadian Urological Association and European Association of Urology make specific recommendations regarding selection of patients for shockwave lithotripsy procedures, including stone density, skin-to-stone distance, treatment rate, acoustic coupling and postshockwave lithotripsy use of medical expulsive therapy.
Conclusions: There are many areas of consensus and only minor areas of conflict among the most up-to-date American Urological Association, Canadian Urological Association, European Association of Urology, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Urological Association of Asia guidelines on the medical and surgical management of stone disease. Conflicts among guidelines and areas of low evidence, such as followup imaging strategies and stone surveillance, the use of a ureteral access sheath in ureteroscopy and guidance on the use of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy, are opportunities for novel, impactful high grade clinical studies.
Keywords: consensus; evidence-based practice; kidney calculi; ureteral calculi; urolithiasis.