Introduction. Research Institute of Urology of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, directed by Acad. of RAMS, Professor Lopatkin N.A., placed a greater focus on the epidemiology of urological diseases, including urolithiasis, in the USSR and the Russian Federation. Currently, the Institute is monitoring urological morbidity, disability and mortality.
According to many population-based studies, the worldwide prevalence of urolithiasis is 3.5–9.6%, and there is a strong upward trend in the frequency of urolithiasis detection among the population. At the same time there are significant differences in this indicator in different countries.
The aim of thisstudy wasto provide a detailed assessment of the urolithiasis prevalence in the adult population of the Russian Federation.
Materials and methods. The information on the main indicators characterizing the incidence of urolithiasis in adult population of the Russian Federation from 2005 to 2016 was collected and summarized for the study. This information was obtained from sources of official statistics of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, from reports ofregional specialized agencies and from federal state statistical observation. The maximum and minimum rates of urolithiasis per 100,000 population in federal districts and regions of the Russian Federation were determined.
Results. The data on the dynamics of the incidence of urolithiasis in the Russian Federation and its regions was obtained. In 2005, 646532 cases of urolithiasis were registered among the adult population in the Russian Federation, meanwhile in 2016 – 866742 (increased by 34%). The number of urolithiasis cases, which were detected for the first time, increased by 27.3%. A steady increase in the incidence of urolithiasis per 100,000 adultsin federal districts(FD) of the Russian Federation was determined (increased by 17.6%).
In 2016 an average of 737.5 urolithiasis cases per 100,000 adult population (0.7%) were reported in Russian Federation: in the Central FD – 728.2, North-West FD – 738.8, Southern – 711.5, North Caucasian FD – 614.5, Volga FD – 738.1, Ural FD – 706.7, Siberian FD-791.8 and Far-Eastern FD – 801.3. Overthe 12-yearfollow-up period, an increase in the incidence of urolithiasis per 100,000 population in all federal districts was observed as well as in the number of patients with a first-time diagnosis per 100,000 population.
The regions with the highest and lowest rate of incidence of urolithiasis per 100,000 population were determined in each federal district. It was noted that the morbidity may differ even within one FD by 3-4 times. Thus, in case of Central Federal District, the incidence per 100,000 population in the Oryol Oblast was 1339.8, and in the Ivanovo Oblast – 303.9. Also, there was a discrepancy in the incidence map with known endemic areas of urolithiasis: for example, in 2016 there were only 336.8 cases of urolithiasis per 100,000 population in Kalmykia, which is considered as endemic area. This is almost 2 times lower than the average for Russian Federation and South FD. In our opinion, such contradictory data may be due to organizational deficiencies in the region’s public health system.
Conclusion. The statistical analysis of the incidence of urolithiasis allowed us to provide clear information on the morbidity and its dynamics over a 12-year period and showed that primary prevention (based on educational work) and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (palindromia prevention) may be a promising solution to the problem of an increased number of reported urolithiasis cases.
Authors declare lack of the possible conflicts of interests