Outcomes and Long-term Follow-up of Patients with Cystine Stones: a Systematic Review

  • Sacha L. MooreEmail author
  • Paul Cook
  • Vincent de Coninck
  • Etienne Xavier Keller
  • Olivier Traxer
  • Laurian Dragos
  • Iqbal S. Shergill
  • Bhaskar K. Somani
Endourology (P Mucksavage and B Somani, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Endourology


Purpose of Review

Cystine stone patients can be difficult to manage with frequent recurrences. We performed a systematic review with a view to assessing interventions, compliance and their long-term outcomes.

Recent Findings

Ten retrospective observational studies (253 patients) assessed the outcomes and long-term follow-up of cystine stone patients. The mean length of follow-up was 9.6 years (range 3.5–21.8 years). The overall mean number of surgical procedures/patient was 5.7 (range 2–9.8/patient) with the overall mean number of surgical procedures/patient/year at 0.59 (range 0.22–1.32/patient/year). While open surgery has decreased over the last decade and PCNL has been stable, there seems to be a rise of RIRS during this period.


Patients with cystine stones need periodic interventions for stone recurrences despite medical management, with limited data showing the impact on renal function. While the management is individualised, wide variability exists with often poor and incomplete patient data.


Urolithiasis Cystinuria Cystine stone Kidney stone disease (KSD) Outcomes Recurrence Ureteroscopy PCNL 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sacha L Moore, Paul Cook, Vincent de Coninck, Etienne Xavier Keller, Olivier Traxer, Laurian Dragos, and Iqbal S Shergill each declare no potential conflicts of interest. Bhaskar K Somani is a section editor for Current Urology Reports.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Yamaçake KGR, Marchini GS, Reis S, Danilovic A, Vicentini FC, Torricelli FCM, et al. The challenge of cystine and struvite stone formers: clinical, metabolic and surgical assessment. Int Braz J Urol. 2016;42(5):977–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahmed K, Dasgupta P, Khan MS. Cystine calculi: challenging group of stones. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82(974):799–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saravakos P, Kokkinou V, Giannatos E. Cystinuria: current diagnosis and management. Urology. 2014;83(4):693–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knoll T, Zollner A, Wendt-Nordahl G, et al. Cystinuria in childhood and adolescence: recommendations for diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Pediatr Nephrol. 2005;20(1):19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biyani CS, Cartledge JJ. Cystinuria-diagnosis and management. EAU-EBU Updat Ser. 2006;4:175–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gul Z, Monga M, et al. Medical and dietary therapy for kidney stone prevention. Korean J Urol. 2014;55:775–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Claes DJ, Jackson E. Cystinuria: mechanisms and management. Pediatr Nephrol. 2012;27(11):2031–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fotiadis D, Kanai Y, Palacín M. The SLC3 and SLC7 families of amino acid transporters. Mol Asp Med. 2013;34(2–3):139–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Wong KA, Mein R, Wass M, Flinter F, Pardy C, Bultitude M, et al. The genetic diversity of cystinuria in a UK population of patients. BJU Int. 2015;116(1):109–16 This paper discusses important advancements in the uderstanding of the genetic basis of cystinuria.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sahota A, Tischfield JA, Goldfarb DS, Ward MD, Hu L. Cystinuria: genetic aspects, mouse models, and a new approach to therapy. Urolithiasis. 2018;47:57–66. Scholar
  11. 11.
    • Moore SL, Somani BK, Cook P. Journey of a cystinuric patient with a long-term follow-up from a medical stone clinic: necessity to be SaFER (stone and fragments entirely removed). Urolithiasis. 2018:1–6 This study provides much-needed up-to-date recurrence data and also attempts to evaluate the impact of cystinuria on renal function over time. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    • Usawachintachit M, Sherer B, Hudnall M, Tzou DT, Taguchi K, Hsi RS, et al. Clinical outcomes for cystinuria patients with unilateral versus bilateral cystine stone disease. J Endourol. 2018;32(2):148–53 This study is the largest observational study of cystinuric patients published to date, with good follow-up length and detailed breakdown of types of surgical intervention. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eggermann T, Venghaus A, Zerres K. Cystinuria: an inborn cause of urolithiasis. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2012;7:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas K, Wong K, Withington J, Bultitude M, Doherty A. Cystinuria—a urologist’s perspective. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11(5):270–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sfoungaristos S, Hakim R, Katz R, Gofrit ON, Landau EH, Yutkin V, et al. Cystine stones: a single tertiary center experience. J Endourol. 2015;29(3):362–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shim M, Park HK. Multimodal treatments of cystine stones: an observational, retrospective single-center analysis of 14 cases. Korean J Urol. 2014;55(8):515–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Barbey F, Joly D, Rieu P, et al. Medical treatment of cystinuria: critical reappraisal of long-term results. J Urol. 2000;163(5):1419–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pareek G, Steele TH, Nakada SY. Urological interventions in patients with cystinuria is decreased with medical compliance. J Urol. 2005;174:2250–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chow GK, Streem SB. Contemporary urological intervention for cystinuric patients: immediate and long-term impact and implications. J Urol. 1998;160(2):341–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haritopoulos K, Fojtik P, Cross W, et al. Impact of a metabolic stone clinic on management of patients with cystinuria: 5 years follow-up. Clin Ter. 2010;161(4):341–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ahmed K, Khan MS, Thomas K, Challacombe B, Bultitude M, Glass J, et al. Management of cystinuric patients: an observational, retrospective, single-centre analysis. Urol Int. 2008;80(2):141–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Somani BK, Desai M, Traxer O, Lahme S. Stone free rate (SFR): a new proposal for defining levels of SFR. Urolithiasis. 2014;42(2):95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wright A, Rukin N, Smith D, de la Rosette J, Somani BK. ‘Mini, ultra, micro’ - nomenclature and cost of these new minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) techniques. Ther Adv Urol. 2016;8(2):142–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    New F, Somani BK. A complete world literature review of quality of life in patients with kidney stone disease. Curr Urol Rep. 2016;17(12):88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y, Osther PJ, Frank M, de Sio M, et al. Complications associated with ureteroscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the clinical Office of Endourological Society URS global study. World J Urol. 2017;35(4):675–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghosh A, Oliver R, Way C, White L, Somani BK. Results of day-case ureterorenoscopy (DC-URS) for stone disease: prospective outcomes over 4.5 years. World J Urol. 2017;35(11):1757–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sacha L. Moore
    • 1
    Email author
  • Paul Cook
    • 2
  • Vincent de Coninck
    • 3
  • Etienne Xavier Keller
    • 4
  • Olivier Traxer
    • 5
  • Laurian Dragos
    • 6
  • Iqbal S. Shergill
    • 7
  • Bhaskar K. Somani
    • 8
  1. 1.North Wales Clinical Research CentreWrexham Maelor HospitalWrexhamUK
  2. 2.Department of Biochemical Pathology & Metabolic MedicineUniversity Hospital SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Department of Urology, AZ KlinaBrasschaatBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Urology, University Hospital ZurichUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of UrologySorbonne UniversitéParisFrance
  6. 6.Department of UrologyUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy Victor Babeş TimişoaraTimişoaraRomania
  7. 7.Department of Urology, Wrexham Maelor Hospital and Clinical DirectorNorth Wales Clinical Research CentreWrexhamUK
  8. 8.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations