[The 1-cm lower calyx calculus: SWT, URS or Mini-PCNL? Guidelines vs. reality.]

Abstract

Urinary stones of the upper urinary tract can be considered a widespread public health concern due to their high incidence and prevalence and their health policy-related and financial implications. A significant proportion of newly diagnosed kidney stones are lower-pole stones, i.e., stones affecting the lower calyx group of the renal pelvicalyceal system. These are often diagnosed by chance, i.e., as incidental findings during ultrasound or CT scans performed for other reasons, or as "secondary stones" detected during the diagnostic work-up of symptomatic urinary stones in other locations. Residual disintegrates after extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) or endoscopic stone therapy constitute a further, quantitatively significant group. These incidentally discovered lower-pole stones are often characterised by their small size and lack of symptoms. It stands to reason that some of these small, asymptomatic lower-pole stones do not always remain small and asymptomatic, and that treatment tends to become more complex with increasing size. There has been an astonishing lack of published studies with a high level of evidence over the last 20 years to provide a conclusive and reproducible answer to the question posed in this review. Small, asymptomatic stones can be monitored. Symptomatic and rapidly growing stones should be treated. There is a lack of valid risk factors allowing an identification of subgroups that should be treated prophylactically at the asymptomatic stage. In active therapy, a 10-to-20-year-old principle still holds true today: a high stone-free rate in one therapy session is offset by an increased complication rate, with increasing miniaturisation in endourology (retrograde and percutaneous) and increasingly effective laser disintegration shifting this basic principle more and more in favour of flexible URS and (mini, micro) PCNL. The range of indications for ESWL is undoubtedly becoming smaller, and this also applies to lower-pole stones. The results of an ongoing prospective randomised study comparing the different treatment modalities, albeit with recruitment difficulties, are still pending.