Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones.
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007; 41(4):316-23.SJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To derive hardness factors for crystal phases of urinary tract stones and describe the hardness pattern in a stone population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a retrospective study, recordings from patients treated with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (stone surface area < or = 100 mm2) were used to derive hardness factors. The number of re-treatments, the number of shock waves and the energy index (the voltage in kilovolts multiplied by the number of shock waves) required for a satisfactory stone disintegration were assumed to reflect the hardness. The stone composition in 2100 patients provided the basis for an average hardness pattern. A hardness index was calculated from the fraction of each crystal phase and its hardness factor.

RESULTS

The hardness factors were as follows: calcium oxalate monohydrate, 1.3; calcium oxalate dehydrate, 1.0; hydroxyapatite, 1.1; brushite, 2.2; uric acid/urate, 1.0; cystine, 2.4; carbonate apatite, 1.3; magnesium ammonium phosphate, 1.0; and mixed infection stones, 1.0. The hardness index for 114 stones (surface area 100-200 mm2) corresponded reasonably well to the ESWL treatment efforts. Calcium oxalate monohydrate, calcium oxalate dihydrate and hydroxyapatite were the most frequently encountered crystal phases in all 2100 stones. Only 21% of the stones were composed of only one crystal phase. There were two, three and more than three crystal phases in 26%, 38% and 15% of the stones, respectively. The hardness index calculated for 2100 stones ranged between 0.70 and 2.33, with a mean (SD) of 1.18 (0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

The hardness factors and hardness index derived in this study might be useful for describing the stone situation in individual patients and groups of patients and for comparison of various treatment strategies.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Renal Stone Unit, Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital at Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.No affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17763224

Citation

Ringdén, Ida, and Hans-Göran Tiselius. "Composition and Clinically Determined Hardness of Urinary Tract Stones." Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 41, no. 4, 2007, pp. 316-23.
Ringdén I, Tiselius HG. Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):316-23.
Ringdén, I., & Tiselius, H. G. (2007). Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 41(4), 316-23.
Ringdén I, Tiselius HG. Composition and Clinically Determined Hardness of Urinary Tract Stones. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):316-23. PubMed PMID: 17763224.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones. AU - Ringdén,Ida, AU - Tiselius,Hans-Göran, PY - 2007/9/1/pubmed PY - 2008/1/24/medline PY - 2007/9/1/entrez SP - 316 EP - 23 JF - Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology JO - Scand J Urol Nephrol VL - 41 IS - 4 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To derive hardness factors for crystal phases of urinary tract stones and describe the hardness pattern in a stone population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a retrospective study, recordings from patients treated with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) (stone surface area < or = 100 mm2) were used to derive hardness factors. The number of re-treatments, the number of shock waves and the energy index (the voltage in kilovolts multiplied by the number of shock waves) required for a satisfactory stone disintegration were assumed to reflect the hardness. The stone composition in 2100 patients provided the basis for an average hardness pattern. A hardness index was calculated from the fraction of each crystal phase and its hardness factor. RESULTS: The hardness factors were as follows: calcium oxalate monohydrate, 1.3; calcium oxalate dehydrate, 1.0; hydroxyapatite, 1.1; brushite, 2.2; uric acid/urate, 1.0; cystine, 2.4; carbonate apatite, 1.3; magnesium ammonium phosphate, 1.0; and mixed infection stones, 1.0. The hardness index for 114 stones (surface area 100-200 mm2) corresponded reasonably well to the ESWL treatment efforts. Calcium oxalate monohydrate, calcium oxalate dihydrate and hydroxyapatite were the most frequently encountered crystal phases in all 2100 stones. Only 21% of the stones were composed of only one crystal phase. There were two, three and more than three crystal phases in 26%, 38% and 15% of the stones, respectively. The hardness index calculated for 2100 stones ranged between 0.70 and 2.33, with a mean (SD) of 1.18 (0.15). CONCLUSIONS: The hardness factors and hardness index derived in this study might be useful for describing the stone situation in individual patients and groups of patients and for comparison of various treatment strategies. SN - 0036-5599 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17763224/Composition_and_clinically_determined_hardness_of_urinary_tract_stones_ L2 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00365590601154551 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -