Vol.:(0123456789) Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-023-01463-1 RESEARCH Living donor‑gifted allograft lithiasis: surgical experience after bench surgery stone removal and follow‑up Alba Sierra1 · Carlos Castillo3 · Enric Carbonell1 · Maria Muní1 · Carmen Martinez1 · Juan Manuel López1 · Lluís Peri1 · Antonio Alcaraz1,2 · Maria Pilar Luque1,2 · Mireia Musquera1,2 Received: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 4 June 2023 / Published online: 26 June 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract This study presents the surgical experience and long-term outcomes of living donor kidney transplantations involving asymp- tomatic kidney stones, using ex vivo flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) during bench surgery for stone removal. Out of 1743 living kidney donors assessed between January 2012 and October 2022, 18 (1%) were diagnosed with urolithiasis. Among them, 12 donors were rejected, and 6 were accepted for kidney donation. Stone removal was successfully performed using f-URS during bench surgery, with no immediate complications or acute rejections observed. The study analyzed six living kidney transplants, of which 4 (67%) donors and three recipients were female, and 4 (67%) donors were blood-related to the recipient. The median age for donors and recipients was 57.5 and 51.5 years, respectively. The stones, primarily located in the lower calyx, had a median size of 6 mm. The median cold ischemia time during surgery was 41.6 min, and ex vivo f-URS ensured complete stone removal in all cases. After a median follow-up of 120 months, the remaining grafts were functioning well, and no urinary stone recurrence was observed in either the recipients or living donors. The findings suggest that bench f-URS is a safe approach for managing urinary stones in kidney grafts, providing good functional outcomes without stone recurrence in selected cases. Keywords Kidney transplant · Living donor · Urolithiasis · Flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) · Bench surgery Introduction It has been widely demonstrated that early kidney transplan- tation is the best option for patients with end-stage renal disease, improving survival and quality of life compared with dialysis [1]. The scarcity of organs for transplantation Alba Sierra and Carlos Castillo have contributed equally to this work. Mireia Musquera and Maria Pilar Luque are co-seniors authors. * Mireia Musquera mmusquer@clinic.cat Alba Sierra asierradelrio@gmail.com Carlos Castillo carloscastillodelgado.md@gmail.com Enric Carbonell encarbonell@clinic.cat Maria Muní muni@clinic.cat Carmen Martinez cmartinezg@clinic.cat Juan Manuel López lopez23@clinic.cat Lluís Peri lperi@clinic.cat Antonio Alcaraz aalcaraz@clinic.cat Maria Pilar Luque mpluque@clinic.cat 1 Division of Kidney Transplant, Department of Urology, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain 2 Departament de Cirurgia i Especialitats Medicoquirúrgiques, Facultat de Medicina i Ciències de la Salut, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain 3 Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of General Surgery, Hospital General Plaza de la Salud, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 1 3 91 Page 2 of 6 has pushed professionals to find new strategies to increase organ availability, including living donation, donation after death determined by circulatory criteria (DCD), and the use of organs from expanded-criteria donors (ECD) and non- standard risk donors [2] Nephrolithiasis is considered a relative contraindica- tion for kidney donation due to the risk of adverse stone- related events in recipients [3]. Unfortunately, the inci- dence of nephrolithiasis has increased dramatically in the last 30 years and its diagnosis is gradually occurring earlier, probably due to environmental changes such as dietary hab- its [4]. To increase the number of valid grafts with appro- priate management, several reports have demonstrated suc- cessful outcomes using kidney grafts with urolithiasis [5, 6]. Along that line, the Amsterdam Forum on the Care of the Live Kidney Donor outlined certain acceptance criteria for an asymptomatic potential donor with a history of a single stone, including (1) no hypercalciuria, hyperuricaemia, or metabolic acidosis; (2) no cystinuria or hyperoxaluria; (3) no urinary tract infection; and (4) no evidence of multiple stones or nephrocalcinosis in the computed tomography scan [7]. To date, since the literature on the subject is scarce, there are no definitive criteria for the surgical management of kid- ney stones from living donors. Allograft kidneys are soli- tary renal units, and management of urinary stones demands immediate intervention because these stones represent a potential threat due to the risks of obstruction, sepsis, and loss of graft function [8]. Herein, we report our surgical experience and long-term follow-up in a series of living kid- ney donors (LKD) with asymptomatic kidney stones, after ex vivo flexible ureterorenoscopy (f-URS) for stone removal before kidney transplantation. Materials and methods A retrospective study including 1743 assessed LKDs at a single centre. During the pre-transplant evaluation, 18 (1%) LKDs were diagnosed with urolithiasis by computed tomography angiography (CTA). All donor candidates were asked about symptoms derived from the stones and a basic metabolic workup for renal stones was performed when uro- lithiasis was identified in the CTA. As a result, six (33%) patients went through with the kidney donation after ex vivo f-URS for stone removal. All were assessed regarding the risks related to the bench surgery and the complications due to renal stones and informed consent was signed. Surgical technique After adequate preparation and informed consent, a laparoscopic nephrectomy was performed as described previously [9]. After cold perfusion in the bench surgery, with the kidney graft still immersed in ice slush, the pro- cedure began (Fig. 1). First, we spatulate the distal ureter. Each procedure begins with the introduction of a flex- ible re-usable fibreoptic ureteroscope -the URF-P7 (7.95 Fr, Olympus, USA) or the Flex—Xc (8.5 Fr, Karl Storz, Germany), with a constant 0.9% saline irrigation pressure (40 cm H2O) at ambient temperature and a manual syringe (Irri FloII, Olympus, USA), allowing on-demand forced irrigation when a better view is required. The ureter and the kidney are fixed by the assistant and the introduction of the scope is gently assessed through the ureter reaching the renal pelvis. All renal cavities are explored. When the stone is identified, we remove it using a basket (1.5 Fh, ZeroTip, BostonScientific, USA). In all cases, the stone is sent to the laboratory for FTIR spectroscopy and mor- phological analysis. All interventions are carried out by an experienced endourologist (PL). If this technique fails, pyelolithotomy is performed. Once the kidney is completely stone-free, the graft is transplanted as described, by an open or Robotic-assisted (RAKT) technique [10]. Intravesical ureteroneocystos- tomy (Politano-Leadbetter) or extravesical ureteroneocys- tostomy (Lich-Gregoire) for an open or RAKT approach were used, respectively. A double J (6 Fr, 14 cm, Silicone, Coloplast) is placed after surgery and removed one month after the renal transplant. Fig. 1 After the cold perfusion in the bench surgery, with the kidney graft immersed in ice slush the procedure starts with the introduc- tion of a re-usable flexible ureteroscope with a constant irrigation at 40 cm H2O and a manual syringe allowing on-demand forced irriga- tion. The ureter and the kidney were fixed by the assistant and the introduction of the scope was gently assessed through the ureter reaching the renal pelvis Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 1 3 Page 3 of 6 91 Data collection Data were collected during surgery, including stone volume, Hounsfield units (HU), renal stone placement, and bench surgery time. Postoperative complications were evaluated according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. We also assessed graft follow-up by creatine controls and urinary stone recurrence in both donors and recipients. Results A total of six living kidney transplants were analysed. Four (67%) LKDs and three recipients were female. Four donors (67%) were blood-related to the recipient. The median (IQR) age was 57.5 (44–62) and 51.5 (34–66) years for donors and recipients, respectively. All LKDs were previously asympto- matic, and the diagnosis was made incidentally by CTA dur- ing kidney transplant evaluation. Two donors had a history of urolithiasis, diagnosed, and surgically treated 20 years before. A single renal stone was identified in all. The median (IQR) size was 6 (4–13) mm. The median (IQR) stone den- sity was 715 (189–1700) HU. Four lithiasis (67%) were in the lower calyx (Table 1). Urinary culture and metabolic evaluation were negative in all cases. The fifth case was the most complex of the series, with a 13 mm stone in the lower right calyx. They were treated three months before with extracorporeal shock wave litho- tripsy (ESWL), leaving small residual stones of 4 and 2 mm in the lower right calyx, which were all removed during bench f-URS. In one patient, we could not remove the 8 mm stone during bench f-URS due to no progression at the proxi- mal ureter, consequently resorting to pyelolithotomy. Kidney stone analysis was performed in all cases, most of the cal- culi contained whewellite as the main component (66.7%) (Table 2). Median cold ischemia time was 41.6 (37–46) minutes with complete stone removal in all cases. Neither nonimme- diate bleeding nor acute rejection was observed (Table 2). As immediate postoperative complications, one patient devel- oped paralytic ileus managed with mobilisation and proki- netics. Another patient developed delayed graft function, being the two-stage case, with the longest cold ischemia time of the series. During follow-up, six years later, the patient still presented good kidney function, with 1.63 mg/dl creati- nine levels and a stone-free status. Another patient presented good postoperative evolution, but seven days later presented signs of arterial thrombosis, confirmed by echo-Doppler, therefore, a transplantectomy was performed. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 120 (2.75–359.2) months, the remaining grafts were functioning with a median (IQR) creatinine level of 1.42 (1.2–1.8) mg/dl, and none of the recipients or living donors presented urinary stone recurrence (Table 3). Table 1 Demographics of donor population and stone characteristics S. no. Donors– recipient’s relationship Age (years) BMI (kg/m2) Comorbidities Stone size (mm) Stone density (HU) Stone place- ment Stone type Stone related events post- donation 1 Wife 58 28.69 Pancreatitis 6 430 Lower left calyx Whewellite 95% (Randall Plaque) None 2 Wife 49 20.44 None 4 189 Lower left calyx Whewellite 90% Weddellite 5% Carbapatite 5% None 3 Sister 44 22.31 Urolithiasis (20 years) 8 880 Lower left calyx Carbapatite 80% Whewellite 10% Proteins 10% None 4 Mother 57 25.71 Dyslipidemia Hyperthyroid- ism 6 970 Middle right calyx Weddellite 70% Whewellite 20% None 5 Brother 62 27.78 HTA 13 550 Lower right calix Whewellite 80% Uric acid 20% None 6 Brother 60 27 Urolithiasis (20 years) 5.33 1700 Middle left calyx Whewellite 95% None Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 1 3 91 Page 4 of 6 Discussion Donor graft lithiasis is currently estimated to be approxi- mately 0.64% [11] and was a relative contraindication for donation; however, nowadays it can be managed before, during, or after kidney transplantation [12]. In our study, kidney transplant recipients who received an allograft from living donors with kidney stones removed during bench f-URS had a very low recurrence rate and kidney graft survival was 83% after long-term follow-up, with one graft loss that was not directly related to stone management. Due to the lack of literature, stone management in trans- planted kidneys is a matter of debate. Current options are observation, ESWL, endourologic interventions, or percu- taneous nephrolithotomy and open surgery. Conservative management is recommended for stones under 4 mm, how- ever, 70% of expected spontaneous stone passage failed in a prior series [13, 14]. In addition, urolithiasis in renal transplant recipients is often asymptomatic due to den- ervation of the transplanted graft [14–16]. Clinical find- ings of urolithiasis in renal recipients include unexplained fever, increased creatinine levels, decreased urine output, and haematuria. Even with a longer cold-ischemia time, we press to treat the stone before transplantation to avoid stone-related events. Moreover, several factors have been considered to predispose graft lithiasis progression, such as urinary stasis, reflux, recurrent urinary tract infection, renal tubular acidosis, pH changes, supersaturated urine, etc., [5, 17]. Therefore, we consider lithiasis treatment before kidney transplantation to be essential. Most series report outcomes and treatment of stone formation after kidney transplantation [6, 13], few series report their results after living donor-gifted lithiasis. The largest series was published by Jan et al., with 57 donor- recipient pairs [18]. The kidney with the stone was donated to the recipient and after a median follow-up of 3.5 years, 15.79% lost the allograft and 5.26% presented stone recur- rence with no impact on posttransplant care and graft func- tion. Pushkar et al., presented a series of 14 LKDs with stone sizes between 4 and 10 mm. According to stone size, only three patients were treated with f-URS during bench surgery, however, pyelolithotomy was required for larger stones [19]. Similar findings were produced in our series, Ta bl e 2 D em og ra ph ics of re cip ien t p op ul ati on an d s ur gi ca l o ut co m es HT A hy pe rte ns io n, SW L Sh oc k w av e l ith ot rip sy S. no . Ag e ( ye ar s) Se x BM I ( kg /m 2 ) Co m or bi di tie s St on e r em ov al tec hn iq ue Isc he m ia tim e De lay ed gr af t f un c- tio n Im m ed iat e p os to pe ra tiv e c om - pl ica tio ns Re na l f un cti on (C r, m g/ dL ) Co ld (m in ) W ar m (m in ) 1 63 M ale 24 .69 HT A, du od en al ul ce r, di ve r- tic ul iti s f- UR S 46 2 No Pa ra ly tic il eu s 1.2 6 2 45 M ale 24 .8 No ne f- UR S 43 1.3 7 No Ar ter ial th ro m bo sis (7  da ys af ter ) 3 45 Fe m ale 21 .33 HT A, ch ro ni c a ne m ia f- UR S + py elo lit ho to m y 41 3 No No n 1.8 4 34 Fe m ale 18 .8 HT A f-U RS 38 3 No W all he m ato m a 1.3 5 5 56 M ale 26 Isc he m ic he ar t d ise as e SW L + f- UR S 45 1.1 8 Ye s No n 1.5 2 6 66 Fe m ale 18 HT A, D iab ete s M ell itu s t yp e I , sa rc oi do sis f-U RS 37 2.4 0 No No n 1.1 9 Table 3 Management recommendation Stone size (mm) Management recommendation < 4 Expectant management 4–6.5 URS + Graspers/Basket 7–10 URS + Pyelotomy 10–15 SWL + URS Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 1 3 Page 5 of 6 91 the 8 mm stone could not be extracted via the distal ureter, hence pyelolithotomy had to be performed. Urinary stones of between 10 and 15 mm in kidney grafts is a greater challenge. ESWL and endourology (percutaneous nephrolithotomy and URS) are grade B recommendations of the European Association of Urology (EAU) [20]. This is why in our series, the patient with a 13 mm stone was managed by a two-stage treatment. A basic metabolic stone screening is also recommended by the EAU for all patients presenting kidney stones, which includes urine analysis, measurement of serum calcium, uric acid, and creatinine, and analysis of the stone [19]. None of the LKDs presented metabolic disruption in this evaluation and the kidney stone analysis revealed whewellite as the main component in most stones. Similar findings were described by Tielius et al., where 70–85% were calcium stones, 3–15% infective stones, and 2–18% uric acid stones [21]. On the other hand, donors without proven risk of recur- rent stone formation may be suitable for donation if the stone size is under 15 mm and the kidney is anatomically suitable for transplantation [3]. In fact, in our series, none of the donors presented stone recurrence in the other kidney dur- ing follow-up. Our study reveals that asymptomatic kidney stone formers may not share the same burden of co-morbid- ities as has been described in symptomatic stone formers. Along that line, Burgher et al., performed a retrospective review of 300 male patients with asymptomatic renal calculi to evaluate the risk of progression requiring intervention [22]. At presentation, the mean cumulative stone diameter was 10.8 mm. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, 77% of patients experienced disease progression with 26% requiring surgical intervention, finding a positive association between stone size and progression. When stratified by stone size, patients with isolated stones of 4 mm or larger at presenta- tion were 26% more likely to need an active treatment than patients with a smaller solitary calculus. The risk of stone recurrence and subsequent morbidity in renal patients with a solitary kidney is low but not insignificant, so a strict follow- up is mandatory. We are aware that this is a retrospective study with a rela- tively small number of cases. Large prospective studies are difficult to perform because of the low incidence of allograft renal calculi in the kidney donor population. Despite this limitation, we have demonstrated the efficiency and safety of minimally invasive procedures in the treatment of incidental renal lithiasis in LKDs. Conclusions Living donor grafted lithiasis is a quite rare event. Donors with asymptomatic incidental renal stones are generally accepted for donation. Therapeutic arsenal recommendation is based on the size of the stone, ex vivo f-URS with mini- mal morbidity can be performed without potential hazards to graft outcome. Adequate counselling and close follow-up are essential for both donors and recipients. Long-term studies with more patients are needed to establish the best therapeu- tic option for this specific category of patients and donors. Author contributions AS: manuscript writing. CC: data analysis, manuscript writing. EC: data collection. MM: data collection. CM: data management. JML: manuscript editing. LlP: manuscript editing. AA: manuscript editing. MPL: data management. MM: project devel- opment, manuscript editing. Funding Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature. Data availability Not applicable. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Research involving human participants and/or animals This research does not involve research in humans or animals. Informed consent All were assessed about the risks related to the bench surgery and complications due to renal stones and informed consent was signed. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri- bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta- tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References 1. Wolfe RA, Ashby VB, Milford EL, Ojo AO, Ettenger RE, Ago- doa LY, Held PJ, Port FK (1999) Comparison of mortality in all patients on dialysis, patients on dialysis awaiting transplanta- tion, and recipients of a first cadaveric transplant. N Engl J Med 341(23):1725–1730. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1056/ NEJM1 99912 02341 2303. (PMID: 10580071) 2. Argani H (2022) Expanded criteria donors. Exp Clin Transplant 20(Suppl 4):13–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 6002/ ect. Donor Symp. 2022. L13. (PMID: 36018014) 3. Strang AM, Lockhart ME, Amling CL, Kolettis PN, Burns JR (2008) Living renal donor allograft lithiasis: a review of stone- related morbidity in donors and recipients. J Urol 179(3):832–836. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. juro. 2007. 10. 022. (Epub 2008 Jan 25 PMID: 18221961) Urolithiasis (2023) 51:91 1 3 91 Page 6 of 6 4. Courbebaisse M, Prot-Bertoye C, Bertocchio JP, Baron S, Maruani G, Briand S, Daudon M, Houillier P (2017) Lithiase rénale de l’adulte: des mécanismes au traitement médical préventif [Neph- rolithiasis of adult: from mechanisms to preventive medical treat- ment]. Rev Med Interne 38(1):44–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. revmed. 2016. 05. 013. (Epub 2016 Jun 24 PMID: 27349612) 5. Stravodimos KG, Adamis S, Tyritzis S, Georgios Z, Constanti- nides CA (2012) Renal transplant lithiasis: analysis of our series and review of the literature. J Endourol 26(1):38–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ end. 2011. 0049. (Epub 2011 Dec 5 PMID: 22050494) 6. Harraz AM, Kamal AI, Shokeir AA (2016) Urolithiasis in renal transplant donors and recipients: an update. Int J Surg 36(Pt D):693–697. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijsu. 2016. 11. 032. (Epub 2016 Nov 14 PMID: 27856353) 7. Delmonico, F., & Council of the Transplantation Society (2005) A report of the amsterdam forum on the care of the live kid- ney donor: data and medical guidelines. Transplantation 79(6 Suppl):S53–S66 (PMID: 15785361) 8. Verrier C, Bessede T, Hajj P, Aoubid L, Eschwege P, Benoit G (2012) Decrease in and management of urolithiasis after kidney transplantation. J Urol 187:1651–1655 9. Musquera M, Peri L, D’Anna M, Ajami T, Ribal MJ, Vilaseca A, Revuelta I, Álvarez-Vijande R, Palacios A, Diekmann F, Monsalve C, Tena B, Izquierdo L, Martos R, Paredes D, Beltran J, Oppenhe- imer F, Alcaraz A (2022) Outcomes after 20 years of experience in minimally invasive living-donor nephrectomy. World J Urol 40(3):807–813. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00345- 021- 03912-1. (Epub 2022 Jan 26 PMID: 35079893) 10. Musquera M, Ajami T, Sureda J, Mateu R, Vilaseca A, Peri L, Álvarez-Vijande R, Oppenheimer F, Alcaraz A (2021) Trasplante renal ortotópico. Estado actual [Orthotopic renal allograft trans- plant. State of the art]. Arch Esp Urol 74(10):964–969 (PMID: 34851311) 11. Capocasale E, Busi N, Mazzoni MP, Alessandri L, Sianesi M (2002) Donor graft lithiasis in kidney transplantation. Transplant Proc 34(4):1191–1192. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0041- 1345(02) 02632-5. (PMID: 12072312) 12. Hajji M, Ben Fatma L, Kaaroud H, Abdelmoula J, Zouaghi MK, Ben Abdallah T (2019) Management of urolithiasis in living kid- ney donors. Tunis Med 97(1):140–144 (PMID: 31535706) 13. Sarier M, Duman I, Yuksel Y, Tekin S, Demir M, Arslan F, Ergun O, Kosar A, Yavuz AH (2019) Results of minimally invasive sur- gical treatment of allograft lithiasis in live-donor renal transplant recipients: a single-center experience of 3758 renal transplanta- tions. Urolithiasis. 47(3):273–278 14. Yuan HJ, Yang DD, Cui YS, Men CP, Gao ZL, Shi L, Wu JT (2015) Minimally invasive treatment of renal transplant nephro- lithiasis. World J Urol 33(12):2079–2085. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00345- 015- 1549-9. (Epub 2015 Apr 2 PMID: 25833662) 15. Benoit G, Blanchet P, Eschwege P, Jardin A, Charpentier B (1996) Occurrence and treatment of kidney graft lithiasis in a series of 1500 patients. Clin Transplant 10(2):176–180 (PMID: 8664514) 16. Shoskes DA, Hanbury D, Cranston D, Morris PJ (1995) Urologi- cal complications in 1000 consecutive renal transplant recipients. J Urol 153(1):18–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 00005 392- 19950 1000- 00008. (PMID: 7966766) 17. Harper JM, Samuell CT, Hallson PC, Wood SM, Mansell MA (1994) Risk factors for calculus formation in patients with renal transplants. Br J Urol 74(2):147–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1464- 410x. 1994. tb165 76.x. (PMID: 7921929) 18. Jan MY, Sharfuddin A, Mujtaba M, Adebiyi O, Sundaram CP, Yaqub M, Taber T, Powelson J, Goggins W, Doshi S (2021) Liv- ing donor gifted lithiasis: long-term outcomes in recipients. Trans- plant Proc 53(3):1091–1094. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. trans proce ed. 2021. 01. 015. (Epub 2021 Feb 16 PMID: 33608128) 19. Pushkar P, Agarwal A, Kumar S, Guleria S (2015) Endourologi- cal management of live donors with urolithiasis at the time of donor nephrectomy: a single center experience. Int Urol Nephrol 47(7):1123–1127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11255- 015- 1007-z. (Epub 2015 May 19 PMID: 25987343) 20. Geraghty RM, Davis NF, Tzelves L, Lombardo R, Yuan C, Thomas K, Petrik A, Neisius A, Türk C, Gambaro G, Skolarikos A, Somani BK (2022) Best practice in interventional manage- ment of urolithiasis: an update from the European Association of Urology Guidelines Panel for Urolithiasis 2022. Eur Urol Focus 4(2):281–285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. euf. 2022. 06. 014. (Epub ahead of print PMID: 35927160) 21. Bek-Jensen H, Tiselius HG (1998) Repeated urine analysis in patients with calcium stone disease. Eur Urol 33(3):323–332. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1159/ 00001 9568. (PMID: 9555561) 22. Burgher A, Beman M, Holtzman JL, Monga M (2004) Progres- sion of nephrolithiasis: long-term outcomes with observation of asymptomatic calculi. J Endourol 18(6):534–539. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ end. 2004. 18. 534. (PMID: 15333216) Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.