Advertisement

Journal of Nephrology

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 135–140 | Cite as

Interpreting the results of chemical stone analysis in the era of modern stone analysis techniques

  • Ron GiladEmail author
  • James C. WilliamsJr.
  • Kalba D. Usman
  • Ronen Holland
  • Shay Golan
  • Ruth Tor
  • David Lifshitz
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and objective

Stone analysis should be performed in all first-time stone formers. The preferred analytical procedures are Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) or X-ray diffraction (XRD). However, due to limited resources, chemical analysis (CA) is still in use throughout the world. The aim of the study was to compare FT-IR and CA in well matched stone specimens and characterize the pros and cons of CA.

Methods

In a prospective bi-center study, urinary stones were retrieved from 60 consecutive endoscopic procedures. In order to assure that identical stone samples were sent for analyses, the samples were analyzed initially by micro-computed tomography to assess uniformity of each specimen before submitted for FTIR and CA.

Results

Overall, the results of CA did not match with the FTIR results in 56 % of the cases. In 16 % of the cases CA missed the major stone component and in 40 % the minor stone component. 37 of the 60 specimens contained CaOx as major component by FTIR, and CA reported major CaOx in 47/60, resulting in high sensitivity, but very poor specificity. CA was relatively accurate for UA and cystine. CA missed struvite and calcium phosphate as a major component in all cases. In mixed stones the sensitivity of CA for the minor component was poor, generally less than 50 %.

Conclusions

Urinary stone analysis using CA provides only limited data that should be interpreted carefully. Urinary stone analysis using CA is likely to result in clinically significant errors in its assessment of stone composition. Although the monetary costs of CA are relatively modest, this method does not provide the level of analytical specificity required for proper management of patients with metabolic stones.

Keywords

Nephrolithiasis Stone composition Chemical analysis FT-IR 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T (2015) Metabolic evaluation and recurrence Prevention for urinary stone patients: EAU guidelines. Eur Urol 67(4):750–763Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pearle MS, Goldfarb D, Assimos D et al. Medical management of kidney stones: AUA guideline 2014. Available online: https://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/management-kidney-stones.cfm
  3. 3.
    Schubert G (2006) Stone analysis. Urol Res 34(2):146–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hesse A, Kruse R, Geilenkeuser W (2005) Quality control in urinary stone analysis: results of 44 ring trials (1980–2001). Clin Chem Lab Med 43(3):298–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young S, Jea WL, Joung SR et al (2011) Identification of uric acid stone with dual energy computed tomography in human. J Urol 185(supp):e895Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davceva O, Nikolov G, Ivanovski O (2011) Chemical composition of urinary tract stones in republic of Macedonia. European Urol Suppl 10(9):589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nikolon IG, Ivanovski O, Daudon M (2011) Morphology and composition of kidney stones in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). European Urol Suppl 10(9):589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al-hunayan A, Abdul-halim H, Kehinde EO et al (2004) Mode of presentation and first line of management of non-recurrent urolithiasis in Kuwait. Int J Urol 11:963–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hashim IA, Zawawi TH (1999) Wet versus dry chemical analysis of renal stones. Ir J Med Sci 168:114–118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gault MH, Ahmed M, Kalra J (1980) Comparison of infrared and wet chemical analysis of urinary tract calculi. Clin Chim Acta 104:349–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Primiano A, Persichilli S, Gambaro G et al (2014) FT-IR analysis of urinary stones: a helpful tool for clinician comparison with the chemical spot test. Disease Markers 2014 (Article ID 176165) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charafi S, Mohamed M, Costa-Bauza A (2010) A comparative study of two renal stone analysis methods. Int J nephrol urol 3:469–475Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Daudon M, Donsimoni R, Hennequin C et al (1995) Sex and age related composition of 10617 calculi analyzed by infrared-spectroscopy. Urol Res 43:319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams J, McAteer J, Evan A (2010) Micro-computed tomography for analysis of urinary calculi. Urol Res 38:477–484CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krambeck A, Khan N, Jackson M (2010) Inaccurate reporting of mineral composition by commercial stone analysis laboratories: implications for infection and metabolic stones. J Urol 184:1543–1549CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rebentisch G, Muche J, Reinauer H (1993) External quality assessment of analysis of urinary calculi–a new scheme based mainly on natural concrement materials. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl 212:56–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Basiri A, Taheri M, Taheri F (2012) What is the state of the stone analysis techniques in urolithiasis? Urol J Spring 9(2):445–454Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krambeck AE, Handa SE, Evan AP, Lingeman JE (2010) Profile of the brushite stone former. J Urol 184(4):1367–1371CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Italian Society of Nephrology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ron Gilad
    • 1
    Email author
  • James C. WilliamsJr.
    • 2
  • Kalba D. Usman
    • 1
  • Ronen Holland
    • 1
  • Shay Golan
    • 1
  • Ruth Tor
    • 3
  • David Lifshitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Sackler School of Medicine, Rabin Medical CenterTel Aviv University and the Institute of UrologyPetach TikvaIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Anatomy and Cell BiologyIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  3. 3.Chemical LaboratoryRabin Medical CenterPetach TikvaIsrael

Personalised recommendations