UNASSIGNED: The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines are a set of recommendations for diagnosing, evaluating, and treating urolithiasis in the Saudi population. These guidelines are based on the latest evidence and expert consensus to improve patient outcomes and optimize care delivery. They cover the various aspects of urolithiasis, including risk factors, diagnosis, medical and surgical treatments, and prevention strategies. By following these guidelines, health-care professionals can improve care quality for individuals with urolithiasis in Saudi Arabia.
UNASSIGNED: The Saudi Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel consists of urologists specialized in endourology with expertise in urolithiasis and consultation with a guideline methodologist. All panelists involved in this document have submitted statements disclosing any potential conflicts of interest.
UNASSIGNED: The Saudi Guidelines on Urolithiasis were developed by relying primarily on established international guidelines to adopt or adapt the most appropriate guidance for the Saudi context. When necessary, the panel modified the phrasing of recommendations from different sources to ensure consistency within the document. To address areas less well covered in existing guidelines, the panel conducted a directed literature search for high quality evidence published in English, including meta analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective nonrandomized comparative studies. The panel also searched for locally relevant studies containing information unique to the Saudi Arabian population. The recommendations are formulated with a direction and strength of recommendation based on GRADE terminology and interpretation while relying on existing summaries of evidence from the existing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Management of urinary stones is a major issue for most urologists. Treatment modalities are minimally invasive and include extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). Technological advances and changing treatment patterns have had an impact on current treatment recommendations, which have clearly shifted towards endourologic procedures. These guidelines describe recent recommendations on treatment indications and the choice of modality for ureteral and renal calculi.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for treatment of urinary stone disease.
METHODS: Several databases were searched to identify studies on interventional treatment of urolithiasis, with special attention to the level of evidence.
RESULTS: Treatment decisions are made individually according to stone size, location, and (if known) composition, as well as patient preference and local expertise. Treatment recommendations have shifted to endourologic procedures such as URS and PNL, and SWL has lost its place as the first-line modality for many indications despite its proven efficacy. Open and laparoscopic techniques are restricted to limited indications. Best clinical practice standards have been established for all treatments, making all options minimally invasive with low complication rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Active treatment of urolithiasis is currently a minimally invasive intervention, with preference for endourologic techniques.
RESULTS: For active removal of stones from the kidney or ureter, technological advances have made it possible to use less invasive surgical techniques. These interventions are safe and are generally associated with shorter recovery times and less discomfort for the patient.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose computed tomography (CT) has become the first choice for detection of ureteral calculi. Conservative observational management of renal stones is possible, although the availability of minimally invasive treatment often leads to active treatment. Acute renal colic due to ureteral stone obstruction is an emergency that requires immediate pain management. Medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones can support spontaneous passage in the absence of complicating factors. These guidelines summarise current recommendations for imaging, pain management, conservative treatment, and MET for renal and ureteral stones. Oral chemolysis is an option for uric acid stones.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optimal measures for diagnosis and conservative and medical treatment of urolithiasis.
METHODS: Several databases were searched for studies on imaging, pain management, observation, and MET for urolithiasis, with particular attention to the level of evidence.
RESULTS: Most patients with urolithiasis present with typical colic symptoms, but stones in the renal calices remain asymptomatic. Routine evaluation includes ultrasound imaging as the first-line modality. In acute disease, low-dose CT is the method of choice. Ureteral stones <6mm can pass spontaneously in well-controlled patients. Sufficient pain management is mandatory in acute renal colic. MET, usually with α-receptor antagonists, facilitates stone passage and reduces the need for analgesia. Contrast imaging is advised for accurate determination of the renal anatomy. Asymptomatic calyceal stones may be observed via active surveillance.
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis, observational management, and medical treatment of urinary calculi are routine measures. Diagnosis is rapid using low-dose CT. However, radiation exposure is a limitation. Active treatment might not be necessary, especially for stones in the lower pole. MET is recommended to support spontaneous stone expulsion.
RESULTS: For stones in the lower pole of the kidney, treatment may be postponed if there are no complaints. Pharmacological treatment may promote spontaneous stone passage.