MATERIALS AND METHODS: After a comprehensive search of RIRS-related literature published between 1 January 1964 and 1 October 2021 from the PubMed database, systematic review and assessment were performed to inform a series of recommendations, which were graded using modified GRADE methodology. Additionally, quality of evidence was classified using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence system. Finally, related comments were provided.
RESULTS: A total of 36 recommendations were developed and graded that covered the following topics: indications and contraindications; preoperative imaging; preoperative ureteric stenting; preoperative medications; peri-operative antibiotics; management of antithrombotic therapy; anaesthesia; patient positioning; equipment; lithotripsy; exit strategy; and complications.
CONCLUSION: The series of recommendations regarding RIRS, along with the related commentary and supporting documentation, offered here should help provide safe and effective performance of RIRS.
OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for RIRS on the basis of existing data and expert consensus.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A protocol-driven, three-phase study was conducted by the European Association of Urology Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS) and the International Alliance of Urolithiasis (IAU). The process included: (1) a nonsystematic review of the literature to define domains for discussion; (2) a two-round modified Delphi survey involving experts in this field; and (3) an additional group meeting and third-round survey involving 64 senior representative members to formulate the final conclusions.
OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The results from each previous round were returned to the participants for re-evaluation of their decisions during the next round. The agreement threshold was set at 70%.
RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The panel included 209 participants who developed 29 consensus statements on the following topics of interest: (1) perioperative infection management; (2) perioperative antithrombotic therapy; (3) fundamentals of the operative technique; and (4) standardized outcome reporting. Although this consensus can be considered as a useful reference for more clinically oriented daily practice, we also acknowledge that a higher level of evidence from further clinical trials is needed.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus statements aim to guide and standardize clinical practice and research on RIRS and to recommend standardized outcome reporting.
PATIENT SUMMARY: An international consensus on the best practice for minimally invasive surgery for kidney stones was organized and developed by two international societies. It is anticipated that this consensus will provide further guidance to urologists and may help to improve clinical outcomes for patients.