Urogenital Infections and Inflammations

T.E. Bjerklund Johansen, F. M.E. Wagenlehner, Y.-H. Cho, T. Matsumoto, J. N. Krieger, D. Shoskes, K. Naber

Infection induced urinary stones

 Walter Ludwig Strohmaier 1


1 Urology and Paediatric Urology, Regiomed-Klinikum Coburg. Medical School Regiomed, Coburg, Germany

Abstract

Stones composed of struvite, carbonate apatite and ammonium urate are regarded as induced by urinary tract infection (UTI) with bacteria producing the enzyme urease (mainly Proteus species) which splits urea into ammonium and carbonate ions resulting in supersaturation and alkalization of the urine. Struvite and apatite crystals form and grow to stones.

Compared to other mineral types infection induced stones (IIS) represent only a small percentage of urinary stones. Nevertheless they deserve special attention. Due to the high recurrence rate, the risk for loss of renal function and recurrent UTI, patients with IIS are classified as high risk stone formers.

IIS often form in patients with urinary obstruction, neurogenic bladder disorders, urinary diversion and indwelling catheters.

The mainstay in laboratory diagnosis is urinalysis, urine culture with antibiogram and stone analysis.

As IIS are regularly associated with UTI, fever at presentation is not uncommon. Then immediate imaging is required. Ultrasound of the urinary tract is the imaging modality to be used first, followed by non-contrast computerized tomography (NCCT). As in most IIS patients operative stone therapy is required, a contrast study is mandatory. Therefore, intravenous urography is also a viable option thus avoiding high radiation exposure associated with NCCT.

If there is a septic obstruction caused by the stone, immediate relief is a must. The definite stone removal should be postponed until the sepsis is resolved.

Since IIS often a large renal stones (>2 cm) or even complete or partial staghorn stone, the procedure of choice is mainly percutaneous nephrolithotomy, sometimes in combination with flexible scopes or shock wave lithotripsy. UTI must be treated prior to endourologic stone removal.

In all patients, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended.

Specific metaphylaxis consists of removal of the stones as completely as possible, followed by antibiotic treatment (short or long term) and acidification of the urine (all these recommendations with a LE 3 and GR B).


1 Summary of recommendations

Table 1 shows the definitions for the level of evidence and the grade of recommendation.

  1. Due to the high recurrence rate, patients with IIS are classified as high risk stone formers (EAU guidelines urolithiasis) [1].
  2. The basic laboratory analysis includes urinalysis and urine culture and routine blood test like creatinine, electrolytes, uric acid, blood cell count and CRP and, if intervention is planned, blood coagulation tests (GR A). The stone analysis should be performed using a reliable method as x-ray diffraction or infrared spectroscopy. In experienced hands polarization microscopy may be used as well (LE 2; GR A).
  3. As they are regularly associated with UTI, fever at presentation is not uncommon. Then immediate imaging is required (LE 4; GR A).
  4. Ultrasound of the urinary tract is the imaging modality to be used first, followed by non-contrast computerized tomography (LE 1a; GR A). As in most IIS patients stone removal is required, a contrast study is necessary (LE 3; GR A). Therefore, intravenous urography is also a viable option (LE 4; GR C) thus avoiding high radiation exposure associated with NCCT.
  5. In case of septic obstruction immediate relief is mandatory (LE 1b; GR A). The definite stone therapy should be postponed until the sepsis is controlled (LE 1b; GR A).
  6. Since IIS often a large renal stones (>2 cm) or even complete or partial staghorn stone, the procedure of choice is mainly percutaneous nephrolithotomy, sometimes in combination with flexible ureterorenoscopy/pyeloscopy or shock wave lithotripsy (GR B).
    UTI must be treated prior to endourologic stone removal (LE 1b; GR A).
    In all patients, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended (LE 1b; GR A).
  7. Specific metaphylaxis consists of removal of the stones as completely as possible (LE 3–4; GR A), followed by antibiotic treatment (short or long term) and acidification of the urine (all these recommendations with a LE 3 and GR B). Urease inhibitors are recommended (LE 1b; GR A). However they are not available in most countries.
Table 1: Level of evidence and grade of recommendation
Level of evidence (LE)
Type of evidence
1a Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials
1b Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial
2a Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomization
2b Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study
3 Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case reports
4 Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities
Grade of recommendation Nature of recommendations
A Based on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations and including at least one randomised trial
B Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials
C Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality

2 Introduction

The association of UTI and urolithiasis is a common phenomenon. Holmgren et al. [2] reported positive urine cultures in about 25% of their urinary stone patients. Association, however, does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. UTI can also occur as a consequence of stones.

The term “infection induced urinary stones (IIS)”, however, means that there is not only an association of stones and urinary tract infections (UTI) but a causal relationship. Already more than a hundred years ago, T.R. Brown [3] reported that some bacteria caused the formation of urinary stones consisting of calcium and magnesium phosphate. Sumner [4] isolated the bacterial enzyme urease which splits urea into ammonium and carbonate ions resulting in supersaturation and alkalization of the urine. Struvite and apatite clouds develop in which crystal growth is supported. These crystals deposit on the surface of the bacteria. Within the bacteria mainly carbonate apatite crystals form. After lysis of the bacteria, these crystals serve as new germs for stone formation (Figure 1) [5].

Figure 1: Pathogenesis of infection induced urinary stones (struvite and carbonate apatite)

Today, three stone types are regarded as induced by UTI: struvite (magnesium ammonium phosphate), carbonate apatite (termed also carbapatite or hydroxyapaptite) and monoammonium urate [6], [7], [8].

3 Methods

A systematic literature search was performed for the last 30 years in PUBMED/MEDLINE, Cochrane etc. with the following key words: infection, urinary stones, infection induced urolithiasis, infection induced nephrolithiasis, and without limitations. A total of 231 publications were identified, which were screened by title and abstract. After exclusion of duplicates a total of 40 were included into the review (analysis), supplemented by citations of known to the author.

4 Results

Epidemiology

The current literature shows that in industrialized countries the frequency of IIS dropped considerably during the last decades. Struvite as a major component is found in 5–15 % of all stones [9], [10], [11]. Recently, in a series of almost 28,000 stone analyses Daudon et al. [12] reported a 3.5 and 12.1 percentage of struvite containing stone in males and females respectively. In the eighties of the last century, the percentages were 5.5 and 22.3 respectively.

Contrary to these figures, the percentage of IIS in developing countries is much higher ranging up to 45% [13], [14]. This reflects the fact that UTI are still more common in these countries and antibiotics are less available. Nevertheless, the percentage of IIS is also declining in these countries [15].

IIS are more common in women, infants and elderly persons [16], [17].

Pathogenesis

A UTI caused by urease producing bacteria is the mainstay of IIS [18]. This can be shown by the fact that urease production could be found in all patients with a struvite/apatite percentage of more than 80% in their stones [19].

The most important producers of this enzyme are Proteus, Morganella and Providencia species, less commonly found are urease-producing strains in Staphylococcus, Klebsiella, and Pseudomonas species [5], [19]. Furthermore, Corynebacterium urealyticum and Ureaplasma urealyticum also split urea [20], [21], [22].

The pathogenesis of struvite, which is the most frequent IIS, has been outlined already above (see Introduction).

Only in a minority of IIS carbapatite or ammonium urate are the main or solitary components.

Carbapatite cannot only form as metabolic stones (e.g. hypophosphatemia, Dent´s disease, Nephrocalcinosis) but also induced by UTI [12]. A high carbonation rate (ratio between the intensity of the ν3 band of carbonate and phosphate ions in FTIR spectroscopy) of carbapatite is suggestive for an infection induced pathway [23]. In these stones, bacterial imprints have been found by scanning electron microscopy. A carbonation rate of 15% has been proposed as a threshold [24]. Nevertheless, a high carbonation rate is not a prove for infection since in a another series it was only weakly predictive for a positive bacterial culture from the stone [25].

Ammonium urate stones are very rare today (0.2%). They form when the urine is supersaturated with both uric acid and ammonium ions resulting in alkaline urine. This may be due either to an UTI by urea-splitting bacteria or nutrition very poor in phosphate.

Clinical presentation

Principally, patients with IIS can present with the same symptoms (acute flank pain, renal colic, diffuse back pain) as patients with other stone types. As IIS may grow much faster than non-infected stones, usually they are larger at first presentation (Figure 2) and acute flank pain is not so common. Symptoms of UTI may accompany or precede.

Figure 2: Large staghorn stone consisting of apatite and struvite

IIS mainly form in conditions with a disturbed urinary flow as urinary tract obstruction on all levels (e.g. ureteropelvic junction obstruction, subvesical obstruction), neurogenic bladder dysfunction and urinary diversion. Another important risk factor is the presence of any indwelling catheter (e.g. urethral, suprapubic, ureteral, and nephrostomy). All these conditions promote UTI. In case of indwelling catheters, the formation of a biofilm additionally facilitates crystallization, crystal adherence and stone formation [26], [27].

Diagnosis

Diagnostic imaging is more or less the same as for every other stone. As they are regularly associated with UTI, fever at presentation is not uncommon. Then immediate imaging is required (LE 4; GR A).

Ultrasound of the urinary tract is the imaging modality to be used first [1], [28], [29] (Figure 3). For further evaluation different radiological modalities are available. In acute flank pain, the EAU guidelines recommend to perform a non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) as it is the method with the highest accuracy (LE 1a, GR A). [1]. However, it has to be considered that NCCT goes along with a quite high radiation dose. This dose may be lowered by using low-dose protocols. However, this is not a standardized protocol and the resolution of the NCCT is decreased considerably by lowering the radiation dose. This has to be considered especially in children. Kuhns a.o. calculated that ratio of the risk for abdominal and pelvic cancer due to a single NCCT for stones to the risk of a naturally occurring cancer over the lifetime of a child is estimated to be 2/1,000 to 3/1,000 [30].

Figure 3: Ultrasound image of a large renal pelvic stone consisting of struvite and apatite

NCCT allows for a rough estimation of the stone composition. Dependant on the mineralogical composition, IIS have a density between 400 and 1,000 Hounsfield Units [31], [32], [33], [34]. However, resolution also suffers in regard to stone composition (measurement of Hounsfield Units).

If stone removal is planned – and this is almost always the case in patients with IIS – a contrast study is necessary as the anatomy of the collecting system and renal function have to be assessed (LE 3; GR A) [1]. The EAU guidelines prefer (with a low level of evidence: 3, and low grade of recommendation: C) a contrast enhanced CT scan which means, however, a very high radiation dose of up to 10 mSv. In my opinion, an intravenous urography – which may be used also as a second choice according to the guidelines – should be preferred [29], [35] (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Intravenous urography in a child presenting with bilateral staghorn calculi consisting of struvite and apatite

Apart from imaging, biochemical modalities are required as well. The basic laboratory analysis includes urinalysis and urine culture and routine blood test like creatinine, electrolytes, uric acid, blood cell count and CRP [1] and, if intervention is planned, blood coagulation tests (GR A). The stone analysis should be performed using a reliable method as x-ray diffraction or infrared spectroscopy. In experienced hands polarization microscopy may be used as well (LE 2; GR A) [1].

In patients with IIS, urine culture is a mainstay as these stones are induced by urease producing bacteria. A resistogram (antibiogram) is indispensable to optimize the antimicrobial therapy. A rapid urease dip-and-react test (urea-indol medium) as it is used now mainly for Helicobacter pylori diagnosis has been demonstrated to be very sensitive for urease testing in urine [5].

In patients with ammonium urate stones, a complete metabolic work-up including uric acid and phosphate measurements in blood and urine should be performed as disturbances in uric acid and phosphate metabolism may play a role for the formation of these stones.

Therapy

Principally, stone removal does not differ from other stones. The current state of the art is delineated in the EAU guidelines [1].

Since IIS often a large renal stones (>2 cm) or even complete or partial staghorn stone, the procedure of choice is mainly percutaneous nephrolithotomy, sometimes in combination with flexible ureterorenoscopy/pyeloscopy or shock wave lithotripsy (GR B). Due to the complex anatomy in these staghorn stones, stone free rates range from 50–80% [36], [37]. Therefore, in a quite large number of patients residual fragments are left behind which are the main risk factor for stone re-growth and recurrence of UTI and IIS [38].

In IIS UTI and obstruction are more common than in other stone types. Therefore, urgent relief of the obstruction (decompression) is more frequently required. For this purpose, percutaneous nephrostomy or ureteral stents may be used (LE 1b; GR A). The definitive stone therapy (e.g. percutaneous nephrolithotomy) should be postponed until the sepsis is resolved (LE 1b; GR A) [1].

In any case, in patients with (suspected) IIS, an antibiotic treatment should be started before stone removal (LE 1b; GR A). In all patients, perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended (LE 1b; GR A).

It has been shown by several authors that IIS stones may be dissolved by an irrigation therapy using Renacidin (10% hemiacridin) [39]. As it is a very time consuming and cumbersome procedure using nephrostomy and ureteral catheters and as it is not available in many countries it is no longer in use today.

Metaphylaxis (secondary prevention)

IIS stones can grow rapidly within weeks and have a high risk for recurrence [9], [40]. In case of residual fragments after stone therapy and/or persisting urinary tract infection they have a very high recurrence rate up to 70% [38], [41]. Struvite stone patients have a higher risk for loss of renal function [42]. For these reasons, patients with IIS are classified as high risk patients and need a special metaphylaxis [1].

Adequate metaphylaxis (i.e. complete removal of all fragments, consequent antibiotic therapy) can reduce the recurrence rate to 10% [43].

Therefore, the first goal is to remove the stones as completely as possible (LE 3–4; GR A). This should be followed by antibiotic treatment. The duration is still a matter of debate (short/long term). Furthermore an acidification of the urine (methionine 250–500 mg tid or ammonium chloride 1 g bid/tid) is recommended (all these recommendations with a LE 3 and GR B). Urease inhibitors like acetohydroxamic acid, the only substances studied in randomized prospective trials, have been shown to reduce the recurrence rate very effectively (LE 1b; GR A) [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. However, due to considerable side effects, they are not available in most countries.

Recently, a pilot study using a D-mannose containing product (Cystoman®, ABI Pharmaceutical) has been used for preventing recurrences in IIS. The first results were promising, however, a definite assessment is not possible as there was no control group [49].

In ammonium urate stone formers, metabolic anomalies (e.g. hyperuricosuria) should be corrected by appropriate measures (diet, Allopurinol). For these recommendations, no randomized trials are available (LE 3–4) [1].

5 Further research

Concerning stone removal and secondary prevention (recurrence), unfortunately no real progress has been made in the last decade.

Further research should concentrate improving complete stone removal increasing the stone free rate. So far stone free rates in large IIS (50–80%) a far from being optimal. As residual fragments are the main risk factor for recurrence it is crucial too improve the stone free rates.

Also the development of less toxic urease inhibitors is an important goal as these are causal agents and the only substances with proven effectiveness in randomized studies.

6 Conclusions

Although IIS make only a quite small share of urinary stones in industrialized countries today and its incidence has decreased, they deserve closer attention as IIS stone formers are at high risk for recurrence, live threatening infections and loss of renal function.

Efforts should be made to improve the surgical results in terms of stone free rate. The current stone free rates of 50–80% in large IIS are a big problem as residual fragments are the main risk factor for re-growth of stones and recurrences.

Medical treatment and secondary prevention (metaphylaxis) should be improved as well. The most important issue is to prompt physicians to counsel and educate their patients adequately. Unfortunately, the majority of general practitioners have insufficient knowledge on stone metaphylaxis and attitude to counsel their patients [50]. Only one third of recurrent patients treated in tertiary referral centre for stone removal received adequate evaluation and metaphylaxis according to guidelines [51]. Many physicians believe that their patients would prefer to suffer from stone episodes every two years than to accept drugs for metaphylaxis. However, 88% and 92% rasp. of all stone patients would prefer to take a drug daily than to suffer from a recurrent stone episode or to undergo a new intervention for a stone [52]. Therefore, educating physicians and patients is a major goal which urgently should be pursued by our urology associations.

7 Conflict of Interest

Walter Ludwig Strohmaier is consultant of Bionorica SE, Neumarkt/Oberpfalz, Germany, and Marpinion GmbH, Oberhaching, Germany.


References

[1] Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EAU Guidelines on Diagnosis and Conservative Management of Urolithiasis. Eur Urol. 2016 Mar;69(3):468-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.040
[2] Holmgren K, Danielson BG, Fellström B, Ljunghall S, Niklasson F, Wikström B. The relation between urinary tract infections and stone composition in renal stone formers. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1989;23(2):131-6.
[3] Brown TR. On the relation between the variety of micro-organisms and the composition of stone in calculous pyelonephritis. J Am Med Assoc. 1901 May 18;XXXVI(20):1395-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1901.52470200035001k
[4] Sumner JB. The isolation and crystallization of the enzyme urease. J Biol Chem. 1926;69:435-441.
[5] Strohmaier WL, Bichler KH, Naber K. Valency of the UREA (R) dip-and-react test for detecting urea-splitting bacteria. In: Martelli A, Buli P, Marchesini B. International Meeting on Inhibitors of Crystallization in Renal Lithiasis and Their Clinical Application: Bologna September 7-8-9th, 1987. Rome: Acta Medica; 1988. p. 265-9.
[6] Bichler KH, Eipper E, Naber K. Infektinduzierte Harnsteine [Infection-induced urinary stones]. Urologe A. 2003 Jan;42(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-002-0272-5
[7] Meissner A, Mamoulakis C, Laube N. Harnwegsinfektionen und Urolithiasis [Urinary tract infections and Urolithiasis]. Urologe A. 2010 May;49(5):623-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-010-2257-0
[8] Miano R, Germani S, Vespasiani G. Stones and urinary tract infections. Urol Int. 2007;79 Suppl 1:32-6. DOI: 10.1159/000104439
[9] Cohen TD, Preminger GM. Struvite calculi. Semin Nephrol. 1996 Sep;16(5):425-34.
[10] Leusmann DB, Blaschke R, Schmandt W. Results of 5,035 stone analyses: a contribution to epidemiology of urinary stone disease. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1990;24(3):205-10.
[11] Leusmann DB, Niggemann H, Roth S, von Ahlen H. Recurrence rates and severity of urinary calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1995 Sep;29(3):279-83.
[12] Daudon M, Bouzidi H, Bazin D. Composition and morphology of phosphate stones and their relation with etiology. Urol Res. 2010 Dec;38(6):459-67. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-010-0320-3
[13] Daudon M, Bounxouei B, Santa Cruz F, Leite da Silva S, Diouf B, Angwafoo FF 3rd, Talati J, Desrez G. Composition des calculs observés aujourd'hui dans les pays non industrialisés [Composition of renal stones currently observed in non-industrialized countries]. Prog Urol. 2004 Dec;14(6):1151-61.
[14] Strohmaier WL. Course of renal stone disease - an epidemiological view. In: Gohel MDI, Au DWT, editors. Kidney stones : inside & out : proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Urolithiasis, held on May 25-28, 2004, in Hong Kong, China. Hong Kong: Reprographic Unit, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University; 2004. p. 377-385.
[15] Djelloul Z, Djelloul A, Bedjaoui A, Kaid-Omar Z, Attar A, Daudon M, Addou A. Lithiase urinaire dans l'Ouest algérien: étude de la composition de 1354 calculs urinaires en relation avec leur localisation anatomique, l'âge et le sexe des patients [Urinary stones in Western Algeria: study of the composition of 1,354 urinary stones in relation to their anatomical site and the age and gender of the patients]. Prog Urol. 2006 Jun;16(3):328-35.
[16] Borghi L, Ferretti PP, Elia GF, Amato F, Melloni E, Trapassi MR, Novarini A. Epidemiological study of urinary tract stones in a northern Italian city. Br J Urol. 1990 Mar;65(3):231-5.
[17] Clark JY. Renal calculi in army aviators. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990 Aug;61(8):744-7.
[18] Bichler K-H, Eipper E, Naber K, Braun V, Zimmermann R, Lahme S. Urinary infection stones. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2002 Jun;19(6):488–98.DOI: 10.1016/S0924-8579(02)00088-2
[19] Balk N, Strohmaier WL, Schmid M, Bichler KH. Bacteriologic and metabolic findings in patients with infected urinary stones [Bakteriologische und metabolische Befund bei Patienten mit Urolithiasis]. Urol Res. 1990;18(1):66. DOI: 10.1007/BF00294588
[20] Hedelin H, Brorson JE, Grenabo L, Pettersson S. Ureaplasma urealyticum and upper urinary tract stones. Br J Urol. 1984 Jun;56(3):244-9.
[21] Kaya S, Poyraz O, Gökçe G, Kiliçarslan H, Kaya K, Ayan S. Role of genital mycoplasmata and other bacteria in urolithiasis. Scand J Infect Dis. 2003;35(5):315-7. DOI: 10.1080/00365540310004018
[22] Rose GA, Rosenbaum TP. Recurrent infection stones with apparently negative cultures. The case for blind antibacterial treatment. Br J Urol. 1992 Mar;69(3):234-9.
[23] Carpentier X, Daudon M, Traxer O, Jungers P, Mazouyes A, Matzen G, Véron E, Bazin D. Relationships between carbonation rate of carbapatite and morphologic characteristics of calcium phosphate stones and etiology. Urology. 2009 May;73(5):968-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.12.049
[24] Maurice-Estepa L, Levillain P, Lacour B, Daudon M. Crystalline phase differentiation in urinary calcium phosphate and magnesium phosphate calculi. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1999 Oct;33(5):299-305.
[25] Englert KM, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE, Williams JC Jr. High carbonate level of apatite in kidney stones implies infection, but is it predictive? Urolithiasis. 2013 Oct;41(5):389-94. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-013-0591-6
[26] Jacobsen SM, Stickler DJ, Mobley HL, Shirtliff ME. Complicated catheter-associated urinary tract infections due to Escherichia coli and Proteus mirabilis. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2008 Jan;21(1):26-59. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.00019-07
[27] Paick J-S, Hong SK, Park M-S, Kim SW. Management of postoperatively detected iatrogenic lower ureteral injury: Should ureteroureterostomy really be abandoned? Urology. 2006 Feb;67(2):237–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.041
[28] Strohmaier W. Diagnostic imaging in pediatric urolithiasis. J Pediatr Biochem. 2016 Aug 3;4(2):081–8. DOI: 10.3233/JPB-140110
[29] Strohmaier WL, Bartunek R. [Diagnostic imaging--the end of intravenous urography?]. Urologe A. 2008 May;47(5):556, 558-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-008-1709-2
[30] Kuhns LR, Oliver WJ, Christodoulou E, Goodsitt MM. The predicted increased cancer risk associated with a single computed tomography examination for calculus detection in pediatric patients compared with the natural cancer incidence. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011 Apr;27(4):345-50. DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e3182132016
[31] Bellin MF, Renard-Penna R, Conort P, Bissery A, Meric JB, Daudon M, Mallet A, Richard F, Grenier P. Helical CT evaluation of the chemical composition of urinary tract calculi with a discriminant analysis of CT-attenuation values and density. Eur Radiol. 2004 Nov;14(11):2134-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2365-6
[32] Burgos FJ, Sánchez J, Avila S, Saez JC, Escudero Barrilero A. Utilidad de la tomografía axial computarizada (CT) en el establecimiento de la composición litiásica [The usefulness of computerized axial tomography (CT) in establishing the composition of calculi]. Arch Esp Urol. 1993 Jun;46(5):383-91.
[33] Newhouse JH, Prien EL, Amis ES Jr, Dretler SP, Pfister RC. Computed tomographic analysis of urinary calculi. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1984 Mar;142(3):545-8. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.142.3.545
[34] Sheir KZ, Mansour O, Madbouly K, Elsobky E, Abdel-Khalek M. Determination of the chemical composition of urinary calculi by noncontrast spiral computerized tomography. Urol Res. 2005 May;33(2):99-104. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-004-0454-2
[35] Strohmaier WL. Imaging in pediatric urolithiasis-what's the best choice? Transl Pediatr. 2015 Jan;4(1):36-40. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-4336.2015.01.01
[36] el-Nahas AR, Eraky I, Shokeir AA, Shoma AM, el-Assmy AM, el-Tabey NA, Soliman S, Elshal AM, el-Kappany HA, el-Kenawy MR. Factors affecting stone-free rate and complications of percutaneous nephrolithotomy for treatment of staghorn stone. Urology. 2012 Jun;79(6):1236-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.01.026
[37] Shahrour K, Tomaszewski J, Ortiz T, Scott E, Sternberg KM, Jackman SV, Averch TD. Predictors of immediate postoperative outcome of single-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Urology. 2012 Jul;80(1):19-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2011.12.065
[38] Beck EM, Riehle RA Jr. The Fate of Residual Fragments after Extracorporeal shock wave Lithotripsy Monotherapy of Infection Stones. J Urol. 1991 Jan;145(1):6–9.DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)38230-7
[39] Gonzalez RD, Whiting BM, Canales BK. The history of kidney stone dissolution therapy: 50 years of optimism and frustration with renacidin. J Endourol. 2012 Feb;26(2):110-8. DOI: 10.1089/end.2011.0380
[40] Griffith DP, Osborne CA. Infection (urease) stones. Miner Electrolyte Metab. 1987;13(4):278-85.
[41] Martínez-Piñeiro JA, de Iriarte EG, Armero AH. The problem of recurrences and infection after surgical removal of staghorn calculi. Eur Urol. 1982;8(2):94-101.
[42] Gambaro G, Favaro S, D'Angelo A. Risk for renal failure in nephrolithiasis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001 Feb;37(2):233-43.
[43] Jarrar K, Boedeker RH, Weidner W. Struvite stones: long term follow up under metaphylaxis. Ann Urol (Paris). 1996;30(3):112-7.
[44] Griffith DP, Gibson JR, Clinton CW, Musher DM. Acetohydroxamic Acid: Clinical Studies of a Urease Inhibitor in Patients With Staghorn Renal Calculi. J Urol. 1978 Jan;119(1):9–15. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)57366-8
[45] Griffith DP, Gleeson MJ, Lee H, Longuet R, Deman E, Earle N. Randomized, double-blind trial of Lithostat (acetohydroxamic acid) in the palliative treatment of infection-induced urinary calculi. Eur Urol. 1991;20(3):243-7.
[46] Griffith DP, Khonsari F, Skurnick JH, James KE. A Randomized Trial of Acetohydroxamic Acid for the Treatment and Prevention of Infection-Induced Urinary Stones in Spinal Cord Injury Patients. J Urol. 1988 Aug;140(2):318–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(17)41592-8
[47] Griffith DP, Musher DM. Prevention of infected urinary stones by urease inhibition. Invest Urol. 1973 Nov;11(3):228-33.
[48] Griffith DP, Musher DM. Acetohydroxamic acid. Urology. 1975 Mar;5(3):299–302. DOI: 10.1016/0090-4295(75)90142-9
[49] Proietti S, Giannantoni A, Luciani LG, Sortino G, Graziotti P, Giusti G. Cystoman® and calculi: a good alternative to standard therapies in preventing stone recurrence. Urolithiasis. 2014 Aug;42(4):285-90. DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0675-y
[50] Bos D, Abara E, Parmar MS. Knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns among healthcare providers in the prevention of recurrent kidney stones in Northern Ontario. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Nov;8(11-12):E795-804. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.1455
[51] Krepinsky J, Ingram AJ, Churchill DN. Metabolic investigation of recurrent nephrolithiasis: compliance with recommendations. Urology. 2000 Dec;56(6):915–20. DOI: 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00822-0
[52] Bensalah K, Tuncel A, Raman JD, Bagrodia A, Pearle M, Lotan Y. How physician and patient perceptions differ regarding medical management of stone disease. J Urol. 2009 Sep;182(3):998-1004. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.05.025

The ZB MED – Information Center for Life Sciences, Germany, together with the European Association of Urology (EAU) provided the opportunity to publish a “Living Textbook” on “Urogenital Infections and Inflammations” in an open access form. This “Living Textbook” represents also an update of the Textbook on Urogenital Infections published 2010 by the International Consultation on Urological Infections and the EAU: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html.

The “Living Textbook” will cover infections and inflammations of the kidney, the urinary tract, as well as the male and female genital tract considering pathogenesis, diagnostics, treatment, prophylaxis and future aspects. The “Living Textbook” will be structured into about 26 Sections each with two section co-chairs responsible for peer review of the chapters of each section. Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

The editors hope that this “Living Textbook” may become a useful instrument for physicians of different specialties taking care about patients suffering from these diseases.

Truls E. Bjerklund Johansen (Norway),

Florian ME Wagenlehner (Germany),

Yong-Hyun Cho (South Korea),

Tetsuro Matsumoto (Japan),

John N Krieger (USA),

Daniel Shoskes (USA),

Kurt G. Naber (Germany).

Publishing at PUBLISSO

Your chapter will be published at the PUBLISSO platform (https://books.publisso.de).

Information for corresponding authors

It is necessary for all corresponding authors to register at PUBLISSO.
To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

After registration, please complete your user profile. Information from your user profile will appear in the published chapter and the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52). If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.
(If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board, but stay registered, you can disable this feature in your profile settings. In this case, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.)

We kindly ask you to provide the co-authors email addresses in the manuscript so that we can contact them in case of queries.

Information for co-authors

After publication of your chapter, your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter.

If you also want to be displayed in the authors board of the book (http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/book/52), we kindly ask you to register at PUBLISSO. If you are displayed in the authors board, you can be contacted by readers and other professionals. You can also contact other authors of the book for exchange and to build a network.

To register at PUBLISSO please click the following link: http://books.publisso.de/publisso_gold/register

If you do not want to be displayed in the authors board of the book, you do not have to register. Your affiliation (publication data) will be displayed in the published chapter only.

Support

If you have any further questions please don’t hesitate to contact the PUBLISSO editorial office:

E-Mail: livingbooks@zbmed.de
Phone: +49 221 478-7093

General

The textbook will be structured in sections with two co-chairs each. Each section will start with an introductory chapter written by the two respective co-chairs presented like an editorial commentary in regard to the following chapters (see proposed contents of the book). The two co-chairs of each section will also peer review all chapters in their section and stimulate a consensus discussion within their section together with the authors and the main editors if needed.

Chapters

Each chapter should reflect the background to the topic and highlight all of the critical evidence relating to the subject. The intention is to provide an up to date, concise synthesis of the literature on that topic, and for clinical topics also recommendations based on levels of evidence for contemporary clinical practice, as well as suggested research recommendations.

Manuscript

Each manuscript should have up to approximately 3,000 words (excluding abstract, tables/figures and references). The abstract should count about 300 words.

Structure

The outline of each chapter should be structured as follows (similar as in the edition 2010, which can be downloaded for free: http://www.icud.info/urogenitalinfections.html):

  1. Abstract
  2. Summary of recommendations*/key notes*
    (*which ever term is more appropriate)
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Further research
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgement
  9. Conflict of interest of each author
  10. References

Citation style

As a citation style, the Vancouver style is preferred.

Please mark your references in the text with square brackets ([1], [2], ...).

Summary of recommendations

We would like to have the Summary of recommendations at the beginning after the abstract (as in the edition 2010). However, we do not expect as in the edition 2010, that each recommendation is also specified according to Level of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation, because such a claim would not only need a systematic literature search (see below), but also a structured discussion in a defined group of experts.

Systematic literature search

A systematic literature search should be performed, at least of PUBMED/MEDLINE but ideally of several relevant databases in addition (like Cochrane CENTRAL) to find recent, high quality systematic reviews and/or primary research studies. It is not expected to perform for all chapters a de novo systematic review, if such reviews are already published recently, but it still may be indicated for some items. For questions relating therapy, it should be focused on evidence from (systematic reviews of) randomized controlled trials if available.

The method of the systematic literature search needs to be fully described in the section “Methods”, e.g.:

“A systematic literature search was performed for the last ... (usually 10) years in MEDLINE, Cochrane etc. with the following key words ... and the following limitations: e.g. UTI, age (adult?), ... clinical studies ... English ... abstract available ... only peer reviewed ...

A total of ... publications were identified, which were screened by title and abstract ... After exclusion of duplicates ... a total of ... were included into the review (analysis), supplemented by citations or known to the authors ... ”.

Clinical topics

Clinical topics should be focused on the importance to clinical practice according to the up to date scientific knowledge as presented in the literature. It should relate to questions/complaints/symptoms of patient/population concerning definition, diagnosis, therapy/prevention, intervention, and outcome in comparison, if different approaches are feasible. Please choose patient-important outcomes and focus on those, which you deem critical for decision-making.

Level of evidence and grade of recommendations

Any recommendation should be based on the level of evidence and the grade of recommendation. For this purpose the following system, modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine should be used (EAU guidelines 2015):

Level of evidence (LE)

Level Type of evidence
1a Evidence obtained from meta-analysis of randomised trials
1b Evidence obtained from at least one randomised trial
2a Evidence obtained from one well-designed controlled study without randomization
2b Evidence obtained from at least one other type of well-designed quasi-experimental study
3 Evidence obtained from well-designed non-experimental studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies and case reports.
4 Evidence obtained from expert committee reports or opinions or clinical experience of respected authorities.

Grade of Recommendations (GoR)

Grade Nature of recommendations
A Based on clinical studies of good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendations and including at least one randomised trial
B Based on well-conducted clinical studies, but without randomised clinical trials
C Made despite the absence of directly applicable clinical studies of good quality

Comments (EAU guidelines 2015)

The aim of assigning a LE and grading recommendations is to provide transparency between the underlying evidence and the recommendation given.

It should be noted that when recommendations are graded, the link between the level of evidence and grade of recommendation is not directly linear. Availability of randomized controlled trials may not necessarily translate into a grade “A” recommendation where there are methodological limitations or disparity in published results.

Alternatively, absence of high level evidence does not necessarily preclude a grade A recommendation, if there is overwhelming clinical experience and consensus. In addition, there may be exceptional situations where corroborating studies cannot be performed, perhaps for ethical or other reasons and in this case unequivocal recommendations are considered helpful for the reader. The quality of the underlying scientific evidence - although a very important factor – has to be balanced against benefits and burdens, values and preferences and costs when a grade is assigned.

Since the same rating system should be used in all chapters, for the sake of brevity the same sentence could be used in “Methods” for all manuscripts, because the rating system will be described in details in the Preface of the book:

“The studies were rated according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations graded according to a system used in the EAU guidelines modified from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine [1].”

References

[1] European Association of Urology. Guidelines. Methodology section. 2015 ed. Arnhem: European Association of Urology; 2015. p. 3. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-79754-80-9. Available from: http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Extended-Guidelines-2015-Edn..pdf

The Living Handbook of Urogenital Infections and Inflammations is issued by:

European Association of Urology
att. Maurice Schlief, EAU executive manager business affairs

P.O.Box 30016
NL-6803 AA Arnhem, The Netherlands

Phone: 0031-26-38.90.680
E-mail: m.schlief@uroweb.org

Editor in Chief

responsible for the contents according to § 5 TMG and § 55 Abs. 2 RStV (Germany):

Kurt G. Naber, MD, PhD
Assoc. Professor of Urology

Technical University of Munich
Karl-Bickleder-Str. 44c
94315 Straubing, Germany

E-mail: kurt.naber@nabers.de

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington Section of Urology

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Yong-Hyun Cho MD, PhD

St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea Department of Urology

more

Tetsuro Matsumoto MD, PhD

University of Occupational and Environmental Health Department of Urology

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital Urology Department

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Riccardo Bartoletti

University of Pisa
Department of Translational Research and New Technologies

more

Truls Erik Bjerklund Johansen MD, PhD

Oslo University Hospital
Urology Department

more

PD Dr. med. Gernot Bonkat

University Basel
alta uro AG, Merian Iselin Klinik, Center of Biomechanics & Calorimetry (COB)

more

Prof. Tommaso Cai MD

Santa Chiara Regional Hospital
Dept. of Urology

more

Dr Leyland Chuang

Ng Teng Fong Hospital, National University Health System
Department of Medicine

more

Prof. Milan Cizman

University Medical Centre
Department of Infectious Diseases

more

Alison Crawford MSc

Queen's University
Department of Psychology

more

Pfofessor Svetlana Dubrovina MD, PhD

Rostov Medical State University
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dr Valerie Huei Li Gan MBBS (S'pore), MRCS (Edin), MMed (Surg), FAMS (Urology)

Singapore General Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Philip Hanno

University of Pennsylvania

more

Ass prof MD Gundela Holmdahl

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Udo B. Hoyme

HELIOS Hospital Erfurt Ltd.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics

more

David Hunstad

Washington University School of Medicine
Pediatrics / Molecular Microbiology

more

Gitte M. Hvistendahl

Aarhus University Hospital

more

Prof. Michael KOGAN M.D., PhD

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Urology

more

Dr Akihiro Kanematsu

Hyogo College of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Frieder Keller

University Hospital Ulm
Department Internal Medicine 1, Nephrology

more

Professor Katarzyna Kilis-Pstrusinska PhD, MD

Wroclaw Medical University
Department of Pediatric Nephrology

more

MD, PhD Tae-Hyoung Kim

Chung-Ang University
Urology

more

John N. Krieger MD, PhD

University of Washington
Section of Urology

more

Prof Ekaterina Kulchavenya

Novosibirsk Research TB Institute, Novosibirsk State Medical University

more

Dr Christina Kåbjörn Gustafsson

Ryhov Hospital Jönköping
Pathology

more

Dr. Bela Köves

South Pest Teaching Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Dr. med. Giuseppe Magistro

Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich
Department of Urology

more

Vittorio Magri

ASST-North
Urologic Clinic

more

András Magyar

South-Pest Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Professor Emeritus Brian Morris

University of Sydney
School of Medical Sciences

more

Baerbel Muendner-Hensen

ICA-Deutschland e.V.

more

Stephen F. Murphy

Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
Department of Urology

more

Kurt G. Naber MD, PhD

Technical University of Munich

more

Prof. Yulia Naboka

Rostov State Medical University
Department of Microbiology

more

Dr. J. Curtis Nickel MD

Queen's University
Department of Urology

more

Professor Ralph Peeker MD PhD

University of Gothenburg
Department of Urology

more

Tamara Perepanova

N.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology

more

Prof. Gianpaolo Perletti M. Clin. Pharmacol.

University of Insubria
Department of Biotechnology and Life Sciences

more

Felice Petraglia

Department of Biomedical, Experimental and Clinical Sciences, University of Florence
Obstetrics and Gynecology

more

Dr. Jörgen Quaghebeur PhD. Med. Sci.

University Hospital Antwerp and University Antwerp
Department of Urology

more

Yazan F. Rawashdeh

Aarhus University Hospital
Paediatric Urology Section, Department of Urology

more

Professor Claus Riedl MD

-
Urology

more

Matthew Roberts

The University of Queensland
Faculty of Medicine

more

PD Dr. med Guido Schmiemann MPH

Institut für Public Health und Pflegeforschung, Universität Bremen
Abteilung Versorgungsforschung

more

Caroline Schneeberger MD PhD

Academic Medical Center (AMC)

more

Prof. Dr. med. Peter Schneede

Klinikum Memmingen
Department of Urology

more

Aaron C. Shoskes

Des Moines University Medical College of Ostheopathic Medicine

more

Daniel Shoskes MD, PhD

Cleveland Clinic
Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute

more

Prof. Dr. Roswitha Siener

University of Bonn
University Stone Centre, Department of Urology

more

Sofia Sjöström

Queen Silvia Childrens Hospital, Sahlgrens Academy
Pediatric surgery and urology

more

Mathew Sorensen

University of Washington School of Medicine
Department of Urology

more

Prof. Dr. Dr. Walter Ludwig Strohmaier FEBU

Regiomed-Klinikum Coburg. Medical School Regiomed
Urology and Paediatric Urology

more

Satoshi Takahashi

Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine
Department of Infection Control and Laboratory Medicine

more

Professor Paul Anantharajah Tambyah

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Hospital
Department of Medicine

more

Peter Tenke

South-Pest Hospital
Department of Urology

more

Praveen Thumbikat


Department of Urology

more

Dr. Jose Tiran Saucedo

IMIGO / Universidad de Monterrey
Obstetrics and Gynaecology

more

Dominic Tran-Nguyen

Des Moines University

more

Dean Tripp

Queen's University
Psychology, Anesthesia & Urology

more

Prof. SEONGHEON WIE

The Catholic University of Korea, St. Vincent's Hospital
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine

more

Florian M. E. Wagenlehner MD, PhD

Justus-Liebig University of Giessen
Clinic of Urology and Andrology

more

Assoc. Prof. Christian Wejse

Aarhus University, Aarhus University Hospital
Department of Infectious Diseases/Center for Global Health, Dept of Public Health

more

Prof. Dr. Mete Çek

Trakya University, School of Medicine
Urology

more