Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stent encrustation in feline and human artificial urine: does the low molecular weight composition account for the difference?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Urolithiasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the rate of encrustation on JJ stents placed in domesticated cats appears to be decreased as compared to humans. Our study tests the hypothesis that this may be due to specific differences in the chemical composition of human and feline urine. Artificial human and feline urine solutions were used in an in vitro encrustation model where an 80 % stent encrustation could be expected after 7 weeks of incubation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to analyse crystal morphology. Energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) was used to assess composition weight. The percentage of surface coverage of encrustation on the respective stents was quantified using image J Java plug-in software. No significant difference was observed between both solutions with regard to quality and quantity of stent encrustation. Crystals were formed in both solutions as a mixture of Ca-dihydrate and Ca-monohydrate. The study shows that there is no significant difference in the rate of encrustations on JJ stents incubated in artificial feline or human urine. This suggests that a possible difference in stent encrustation between cats and humans is due to factors other than the inorganic biochemical composition of the urines alone. Keeping in mind a true species difference, analysis of urinary macromolecules and proteins will be the logical next step.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Syme H (2012) Royal Veterinary College. Hatfield, UK (personal communication)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Doremus RH, Teich S, Silvis P (1978) Crystallization of calcium oxalate from synthetic urine. Invest Urol 15:469–472

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kavanagh JP (2006) In vitro calcium oxalate crystallisation methods. Urol Res 34:139–145

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kavanagh JP, Jones L, Rao PN (1999) Calcium oxalate crystallization kinetics at different concentrations of human and artificial urine, with a constant calcium to oxalate ratio. Urol Res 27:231–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Laaksovitra S, Valimaa T, Isotalo T, Tormala P, Talja M, Tammela TJ (2003) Encrustation and strength retention properties of the self-expandable biodegradable, self-reinforced l-lactide-glycolic acid co-polymer 80:20 spiral urethral stent in vitro. J Urol 170:468–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Malpass CA, Millsap KW, Sidhu H, Gower LB (2002) Immobilization of an oxalate-degrading enzyme on silicone elastomer. J Biomed Mater Res 63(6):822–829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bartges J, (2011) University of Tennessee, USA (personal communication)

  8. Bartges JW, Kirk C, Lane IF (2004) Update: management of calcium oxalate uroliths in dogs and cats. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 34(4):969–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hesse A, Orzekowsky H, Frenk M, Neiger R (2012) Epidemiological data of urinary stones in cats between 1981 and 2008. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 40(2):95–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Holmgren K (1986) Urinary calculi and urinary tract infection. A clinical and microbiological study. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 98:1–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Bioengineering, School of Engineering and Materials Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

    M. Shafat & M. M. Knight

  2. Barts and The London Medical School, London, UK

    K. Rajakumar

  3. Royal College of Veterinary Medicine, Hertfordshire, UK

    H. Syme

  4. Department of Urology, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK

    N. Buchholz

Authors
  1. M. Shafat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Rajakumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. H. Syme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Buchholz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. M. Knight
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Buchholz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shafat, M., Rajakumar, K., Syme, H. et al. Stent encrustation in feline and human artificial urine: does the low molecular weight composition account for the difference?. Urolithiasis 41, 481–486 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0608-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-013-0608-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation