Home
July 2008 August 2008 September 2008
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
Week 31 1 2
Week 32 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Week 33 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Week 34 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Week 35 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Week 36 31

Composition and Clinically Determined Hardness of Urinary Tract Stones - Abstract Show Comments PDF Print E-mail
  
Wednesday, 21 November 2007

Renal Stone Unit, Department of Urology, Karolinska University Hospital at Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden

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

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.

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).

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.

Written by
Ringdén I, Tiselius HG.

Reference
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2007;41(4):316-23

PubMed Abstract
PMID:17763224

UroToday.com Urolithiasis Section

Reader Comments

Please log-in or register in order to submit comments.

Powered by AkoComment!

 
User Rating: / 1
PoorBest


 
Visitor Ratings:
Healthcare Professionals:
5 (1 votes)