Urolithiasis represents a widespread and common disorder among the world population, with a predicted increase in affected patients in the coming years. Treatment of renal and ureteral stones varies widely, and achieving true stone-free status in all patients is still difficult. Moreover, imaging used to assess residual fragments following procedure impacts the diagnosed stone-free rate percentage considerably. In particular, the use of computed tomography scans has led to a better evaluation of residual fragments as well as so-called clinically insignificant residual fragments, which in a considerable number of cases are, despite their definition, causes of adverse urological events, thus creating a thorny problem for both patients and urologists. Currently, there is no gold standard or validated protocol regarding the management, clearance and prevention of residual fragments. In this article, we review the current literature regarding residual fragments, clinically insignificant residual fragments and their natural history, reporting on diagnostic methods, incidence, complications and outcome with the use of less invasive procedures, taking into consideration viable treatment and management of patients affected.
ScalesCDJrSmithACHanleyJM, et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. Eur Urol2012; 62: 160–165.
2.
TiseliusHGChaussyCG.Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones. Urolithiasis2015; 43(5): 387–396.
3.
AssimosDKrambeckAMillerNL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline. J Urol2016; 196: 1153–1160.
4.
MatlagaBRJansenJPMeckleyLM, et al. Treatment of ureteral and renal stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. J Urol2012; 188(1): 130–137.
5.
RamanJDBagrodiaAGuptaA, et al. Natural history of residual fragments following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy. J Urol2009; 181(3): 1163–1168.
6.
SrisubatAPotisatSLojanapiwatB, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2014; 11: CD007044.
7.
NewmanDMLingemanJEMertzJH, et al. Extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy. Urol Clin North Am1987; 14: 63–71.
8.
StreemSBYostAMaschaE.Clinical implications of clinically insignificant store fragments after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol1996; 155(4): 1186–1190.
9.
DelvecchioFCPremingerGM.Management of residual stones. Urol Clin North Am2000; 27: 347–354.
10.
OsmanMMAlfanoYKampS, et al. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol2005; 47(6): 860–864.
11.
CicerelloEMerloFMaccatrozzoL.Management of clinically insignificant residual fragments following shock wave lithotripsy. Adv Urol2012; 2012: 320104.
12.
AcarCCalC.Impact of residual fragments following endourological treatments in renal stones. Adv Urol2012; 2012: 813523.
13.
BrisbaneWBaileyMRSorensenMD.An overview of kidney stone imaging techniques. Nat Rev Urol2016; 13(11): 654–662.
14.
EgeGAkmanHKuzucuK, et al. Can computed tomography scout radiography replace plain film in the evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic?Acta Radiol2004; 45(4): 469–473.
15.
JohnstonRLinADuJ, et al. Comparison of kidney-ureter-bladder abdominal radiography and computed tomography scout films for identifying renal calculi. BJU Int2009; 104(5): 670–673.
16.
WishahiMElganzouryHElkhoulyA, et al. Computed tomography versus plain radiogram in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy or pyelonephrolithotomy for complex multiple and branched kidney stones. J Egypt Soc Parasitol2015; 45(2): 321–324.
17.
UlusanSKocZTokmakN.Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound2007; 35(5): 256–261.
18.
ViprakasitDPSawyerMDHerrellSD, et al. Limitations of ultrasonography in the evaluation of urolithiasis: a correlation with computed tomography. J Endourol2012; 26(3): 209–213.
19.
KannoTKubotaMSakamotoH, et al. The efficacy of ultrasonography for the detection of renal stone. Urology2014; 84(2): 285–288.
20.
KannoTKubotaMSakamotoH, et al. Determining the efficacy of ultrasonography for the detection of ureteral stone. Urology2014; 84(3): 533–537.
21.
RudOHorstmannMAzizA, et al. Prospective evaluation of intra-observer variability of the hydronephrosis index in sonographic examination of 44 patients with acute renal colic. World J Urol2014; 32(3): 691–695.
22.
GokceMIOzdenESuerE, et al. Comparison of imaging modalities for detection of residual fragments and prediction of stone related events following percutaneous nephrolitotomy. Int Braz J Urol2015; 41(1): 86–90.
23.
ParkJHongBParkT, et al. Effectiveness of noncontrast computed tomography in evaluation of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol2007; 21(7): 684–687.
24.
YorkNEZhengMElmansyHM, et al. Stone-free outcomes of flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi utilizing computed tomography imaging. Urology2019; 124: 52–56.
25.
SheirKZMansourOMadboulyK, et al. Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by noncontrast spiral computerized tomography. Urol Res2005; 33(2): 99–104.
26.
RebuckDAMacejkoABhalaniV, et al. The natural history of renal stone fragments following ureteroscopy. Urology2011; 77: 564–568.
27.
TurkCPetrikASaricaK, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol2016; 69: 475–482.
28.
FankhauserCDHermannsTLiegerL, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in the treatment of untreated renal calculi. Clin Kidney J2018; 11: 364–369.
29.
CandauCSaussineCLangH, et al. Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL. Eur Urol2000; 37(1): 18–22.
30.
Arrabal-MartinMFernandez-RodriguezAArrabal-PoloMA, et al. Extracorporeal renal lithotripsy: evolution of residual lithiasis treated with thiazides. Urology2006; 68(5): 956–959.
31.
GhoneimIAEl-GhoneimyMNEl-NaggarAE, et al. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in impacted upper ureteral stones: a prospective randomized comparison between stented and non-stented techniques. Urology2010; 75(1): 45–50.
32.
SahinCTuncerMYaziciO, et al. Do the residual fragments after shock wave lithotripsy affect the quality of life?Urology2014; 84: 549–554.
33.
KimJKHaSBJeonCH, et al. Clinical nomograms to predict stone-free rates after shock-wave lithotripsy: development and internal-validation. PLoS ONE2016; 11(2): e0149333.
34.
ChenP-CLiuY-THsiehJ-H, et al. A practical formula to predict the stone-free rate of patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Sci2017; 28: 215–218.
35.
RippelCANikkelLLinYK, et al. Residual fragments following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: incidence and predictors on postoperative computerized tomography. J Urol2012; 188(6): 2246–2251.
36.
DrakeTGrivasNDabestaniS, et al. What are the benefits and harms of ureteroscopy compared with shock-wave lithotripsy in the treatment of upper ureteral stones? A systematic review. Eur Urol2017; 72(5): 772–786.
37.
DlugoschJJessenJSiegM, et al. To dust or to fragment? Real-life ureteroscopic outcomes for the treatment of ureteral and renal stones. Eur Urol Suppl2017; 16: e2508.
38.
OzgorFSimsekABinbayM, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after flexible ureterorenoscopy: medium-term follow-up results. Urolithiasis2014; 42(6): 533–538.
39.
HeinSMiernikAWilhelmK, et al. Endoscopically determined stone clearance predicts disease recurrence within 5 years after retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol2016; 30(6): 644–649.
40.
KangMSonHJeongH, et al. Clearance rates of residual stone fragments and dusts after endoscopic lithotripsy procedures using a holmium laser: 2-year follow-up results. World J Urol2016; 34(11): 1591–1597.
41.
ChewBHBrotherhoodHLSurRL, et al. Natural history, complications and re-intervention rates of asymptomatic residual stone fragments after ureteroscopy: a report from the EDGE Research Consortium. J Urol2016; 195(4 Pt. 1): 982–986.
42.
AtisGPelitESCulpanM, et al. The fate of residual fragments after retrograde intrarenal surgery in long-term follow-up. Urol J2018: 1–5. DOI: 10.22037/uj.v0i0.4124.
43.
DanilovicACavalantiARochaBA, et al. Assessment of residual stone fragments after retrograde intrarenal surgery. J Endourol2018; 32(12): 1108–1113.
44.
De la RosetteJAssimosDDesaiM, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: indications, complications, and outcomes in 5803 patients. J Endourol2011; 25(1): 11–17.
45.
DesaiMDeLisaATurnaB, et al. The clinical research office of the endourological society percutaneous nephrolithotomy global study: staghorn versus nonstaghorn stones. J Endourol2011; 25(8): 1263–1268.
46.
SkolarikosADe la RosetteJ.Prevention and treatment of complications following percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Curr Opin Urol2008; 18(2): 229–234.
47.
Olvera-PosadaDTaillyTAleneziH, et al. Risk factors for postoperative complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy at a Tertiary Referral Center. J Urol2015; 194(6): 1646–1651.
48.
GanpuleADesaiM.Fate of residual stones after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a critical analysis. J Endourol2009; 23(3): 399–403.
49.
AltunrendeFTefekliASteinRJ, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: medium-term follow-up. J Endourol2011; 25: 941–945.
50.
OsmanYHarrazAMEl-NahasAR, et al. Clinically insignificant residual fragments: an acceptable term in the computed tomography era?Urology2013; 81: 723–726.
51.
Olvera-PosadaDAliSNDionM, et al. Natural history of residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: evaluation of factors related to clinical events and intervention. Urology2016; 97: 46–50.
52.
TurkCPetrikASaricaK, et al. EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol2016; 69: 468–474.
53.
PatersonRF.Arguments for a comprehensive metabolic evaluation of the first-time stone former. Can Urol Assoc J2010; 4(3): 209–210.
54.
GoldfarbDSArowojoluO.Metabolic evaluation of first-time and recurrent stone formers. Urol Clin North Am2013; 40(1): 13–20.
55.
GiannossiMLSummaV.Post-ESWL fragments as core of new kidney stones. NDT Plus2010; 3(4): 405–406.
56.
SkolarikosAStraubMKnollT, et al. Metabolic evaluation and recurrence prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol2015; 67: 750–763.
57.
Emami-NainiAEshraghiAShahidiS, et al. Metabolic evaluation in patients with nephrolithiasis: a report from Isfahan, Iran. Adv Biomed Res2012; 1: 65.
58.
BhanguGBansalDShahA, et al. Recurrent stone formers-metabolic evaluation: a must investigation. Int Surg J2017; 4: 86–90.
59.
EisnerBHShethSDretlerSP, et al. Abnormalities of 24-hour urine composition in first-time and recurrent stone-formers. Urology2012; 80: 776–779.
60.
PreziosoDStrazzulloPLottiT, et al. Dietary treatment of urinary risk factors for renal stone formation: a review of CLU working group. Arch Ital Urol Androl2015; 87: 105–120.
61.
TiseliusHGDaudonMThomasK, et al. Metabolic work-up of patients with urolithiasis: indications and diagnostic algorithm. Eur Urol Focus2017; 3(1): 62–71.
62.
PickardRStarrKMacLennanG, et al. Medical expulsive therapy in adults with ureteric colic: a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet2015; 386: 341–349.
63.
HollingsworthJMRogersMAKaufmanSR, et al. Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet2006; 368: 1171–1179.
64.
SkolarikosAGrivasNKallidonisP, et al. The efficacy of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in improving stone-free rate and stone expulsion time, after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for upper urinary stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology2015; 86(6): 1057–1064.
65.
ReddyTGAssimosDG.Optimizing stone-free rates with ureteroscopy. Rev Urol2015; 17(3): 160–164.
66.
MeltzerACBurrowsPKWolfsonAB, et al. Effect of tamsulosin on passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med2018; 178: 1051–1057.
67.
YeZZengGChenZ, et al. Reply to Christian Seitz’s letter to the editor re: Zhangqun Ye, Guohua Zeng, Huan Yang, et al. efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones with renal colic: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Trial – Eur Urol 2018; 73: 385–391. Eur Urol2018; 73(4): e92–e93.
68.
CampschroerTZhuXVernooijRW, et al. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 4: CD008509.
69.
PaceKTTariqNDyerSJ, et al. Mechanical percussion, inversion and diuresis for residual lower pole fragments after shock wave lithotripsy: a prospective, single blind, randomized controlled trial. J Urol2001; 166(6): 2065–2071.
70.
LiuLRLiQJWeiQ, et al. Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy for the passage of lower pole kidney stones following shock wave lithotripsy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013; 12: CD008569.
71.
ShahAOwenNRLuW, et al. Novel ultrasound method to reposition kidney stones. Urol Res2010; 38(6): 491–495.
72.
MayPCBaileyMRHarperJD.Ultrasonic propulsion of kidney stones. Curr Opin Urol2016; 26: 264–270.
73.
JanssenKMBrandTCBaileyMR, et al. Effect of stone size and composition on ultrasonic propulsion ex vivo. Urology2018; 111: 225–229.
74.
JingSGaiQZhaoX, et al. Physical therapy in the management of stone fragments: progress, status, and needs. Urolithiasis2018; 46(3): 223–229.
75.
CloutierJCordeiroERKamphuisGM, et al. The glue-clot technique: a new technique description for small calyceal stone fragments removal. Urolithiasis2014; 42(5): 441–444.
76.
TracyCRMcLeroySLBestSL, et al. Rendering stone fragments paramagnetic with iron-oxide microparticles improves the efficiency and effectiveness of endoscopic stone fragment retrieval. Urology2010; 76: 1266.e10–1266.e14.
