These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Composition and clinically determined hardness of urinary tract stones.
    Author: Ringdén I, Tiselius HG.
    Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol; 2007; 41(4):316-23. PubMed ID: 17763224.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]