Nationwide trends in urolithiasis and stone procedures in Iceland
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v61.46753Keywords:
Urolithiasis, upper urinary tract stones, incidence, stone procedures, ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsyAbstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess nationwide trends in registered upper urinary tract stone disease and stone-related procedures in Iceland.
Material and methods: We performed a nationwide retrospective population-based study of adults aged 18 years or older with International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes N20, N22 or N23 in national hospital and specialist-care data from 2010 to 2024. Crude and age-standardised incidence rates were calculated per 100,000 adults. Stone-related procedures from 2013 to 2024 were identified using Nordic Classification of Surgical Procedures codes. Temporal trends were analysed using negative binomial regression with population offsets.
Results: The cohort included 9,492 adults. Registered incidence ranged from 221 to 260 per 100,000 adults and remained stable (95% confidence interval −0.6% to 0.6%; p = 0.914); age standardisation and alternative case definitions gave the same conclusion. Among patients first registered from 2013 onward, 2,432/7,766 (31%) underwent a stone-related procedure. The procedure rate increased from 124.3 to 236.5 per 100,000 adults, corresponding to a 6% annual increase. Ureteroscopy accounted for 10% of procedure registrations in 2013–2016 and 30% in 2021–2024, while shock wave lithotripsy remained the most common procedure.
Conclusions: Registered upper urinary tract stone incidence remained stable, but treatment activity increased substantially. Ureteroscopy use rose rapidly, although shock wave lithotripsy remained the predominant procedure.
Downloads
References
Sorokin I, Mamoulakis C, Miyazawa K, et al. Epidemiology of stone disease across the world. World J Urol. 2017;35(9):1301–1320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-017-2008-6
Vaughan LE, Enders FT, Lieske JC, et al. Predictors of symptomatic kidney stone recurrence after the first and subsequent episodes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(2):202–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.016
Hyams ES, Matlaga BR. Economic impact of urinary stones. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3(3):278–283.
Pietropaolo A, Keller EX, Sener TE, et al. Economic burden of imaging and interventions in endourology: a worldwide cost analysis from European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Party. J Endourol. 2025;39(4):389–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2024.0673
GBD 2021 Urolithiasis Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of urolithiasis in 204 countries and territories, 2000–2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. EClinicalMedicine. 2024;78:102924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102924
Raheem OA, Khandwala YS, Sur RL, et al. Burden of urolithiasis: trends in prevalence, treatments, and costs. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3(1):18–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.04.001
European Association of Urology. EAU guidelines on urolithiasis [Internet]. Arnhem: EAU Guidelines Office; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis
Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, et al. Surgical management of stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society guideline, part I. J Urol. 2016;196(4):1153–1160. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
Herout R, Baunacke M, Groeben C, et al. Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct? World J Urol. 2022;40(1):185–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03818-y
Monga M, Murphy M, Paranjpe R, et al. Prevalence of stone disease and procedure trends in the United States. Urology. 2023;176:63–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2023.03.040
Ordon M, Lantz Powers A, Chew BH, et al. Incidence and trends in the treatment of kidney stones in Canada: a population-based cohort study. Can Urol Assoc J. 2024;18(6):158–164. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8596
Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Æsøy MS, et al. National trends in hospital encounters, outpatient consultations and surgeries for urolithiasis in Norway. Scand J Urol. 2025;60:244–249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v60.45214
Edvardsson VO, Indridason OS, Haraldsson G, et al. Temporal trends in the incidence of kidney stone disease. Kidney Int. 2013;83(1):146–152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2012.320
Icelandic Directorate of Health. National health registries [Internet]. Reykjavík: Icelandic Directorate of Health; [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://island.is/s/landlaeknir/gagnasofn-embaettis-landlaeknis
Laugesen K, Ludvigsson JF, Schmidt M, et al. Nordic health registry-based research: a review of health care systems and key registries. Clin Epidemiol. 2021;13:533–554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S314959
Rögnvaldsson S, Long TE, Thorsteinsdottir S, et al. Validity of chronic disease diagnoses in Icelandic healthcare registries. Scand J Public Health. 2023;51(2):173–178. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948211059974
Statistics Iceland. Population by sex and age [Internet]. Reykjavík: Statistics Iceland; [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://px.hagstofa.is
World Health Organization. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision (ICD-10) [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019 [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en
Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee. NOMESCO Classification of Surgical Procedures (NCSP), version 1.16. Copenhagen: Nordic Medico-Statistical Committee; 2011.
Dobson AJ, Kuulasmaa K, Eberle E, et al. Confidence intervals for weighted suwms of Poisson parameters. Stat Med. 1991;10(3):457–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780100317
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
Posit Team. RStudio: integrated development environment for R [Internet]. Boston, MA: Posit Software, PBC; 2025 [cited 2026 Jul 29]. Available from: https://posit.co/
Lieske JC, Peña de la Vega LS, Slezak JM, et al. Renal stone epidemiology in Rochester, Minnesota: an update. Kidney Int. 2006;69(4):760–764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5000150
Kittanamongkolchai W, Vaughan LE, Enders FT, et al. The changing incidence and presentation of urinary stones over 3 decades. Mayo Clin Proc. 2018;93(3):291–299. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.11.018
Dasgupta R, Cameron S, Aucott L, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopic treatment as therapeutic interventions for stones of the ureter (TISU): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Eur Urol. 2021;80(1):46–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.044
Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, et al. Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol. 2018;36(11):1783–1793. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2320-9
Juliebø-Jones P, Keller EX, Tailly T, et al. The art of shockwave lithotripsy is an endangered species and is worth saving: the perspective of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Urolithiasis group. World J Urol. 2022;40(5):1265–1266. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03883-3
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Bragi Aðalsteinsson, Edward Rumba, Jóhann Páll Ingimarsson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
