Staghorn stones’ composition analysis features

Cover Page

Abstract


The lack of standards in the analysis of the chemical composition of the staghorn stones leads to a decrease in the effectiveness of metaphylaxis, and especially in those cases where the volume of the stone is much larger than the volume of the stone fragment being studied. The aim of this study was to develop standards in order to determine the composition of the staghorn calculi. In the Institute of urology from 2015 to 2016, we identified patients with urolithiasis, staghorn-stone nephrolithiasis who were eventually hospitalized. All patients underwent percutaneous nephrolithotripsy, and fragments of the stone were taken in order to analyze its chemical composition. An analysis of the composition of various fragments taken from different zones of the same calculus was made. Patients were divided into 4 groups depending on the composition of the stone. The first group included patients with a predominance of phosphate in the internal layer of the pelvic fragment of the stone, the second group – with a predominance of oxalates, the third – with a predominance of urates, the fourth – with cystine stones. Our experience, while doing stone analysis, showed that the composition did not coincide in 77% of cases, and in 41,6% of cases a new component in the chemical composition of the stone appeared. Complete coincidence of the composition in the cortical and internal layer of the stone was detected in 35% of the cases, and component coincidence in 58% of cases. In the cortical and internal layers of the pelvic fragments, the total and component coincidence of the composition was 38% and 58%, respectively. Thus, we show the importance of chemical analysis of stones and that the composition of the stone may vary, depending on its location. Timely detection of changes in the nature of the stone allows an adequate treatment of urolithiasis.


Michail I. Andryukhin

Author for correspondence.
valeriya-andrew@mail.ru
Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship
Russian Federation, Moscow

MD, PhD, Dr Med Sci, Professor, Urology and Surgical Nephrology Department with Oncourology Course

Sergey A. Golovanov

sergeygol124@mail.ru
Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology named after N.A. Lopatkin - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation
Russian Federation, Moscow

MD, PhD, Dr Med Sci, Professor, Head, Scientific Laboratory Department

Anastasia M. Polikarpova

any.polykarpova@gmail.com
Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship
Russian Federation, Moscow

PhD, student, Urology and Surgical Nephrology Department with Oncourology Course

Michail Y. Prosiannikov

prosyannikov@gmail.com
Scientific Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology named after N.A. Lopatkin - Branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Centre of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation
Russian Federation, Moscow

MD, PhD, Head, Department of Urolithiasis

Leonid A. Nersisyan

nersmail@gmail.com
Institute of Postgraduate Professional Education FMBA of Russia
Russian Federation, Moscow

PhD, student, Urological Department

Nariman K. Gadzhiev

nariman.gadjiev@gmail.com
Nikiforov Russian Center of Emergency and Radiation Medicine, Ministry of Russian Federation for Civil Defense
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

MD, PhD, urologist

Nair S. Tagirov

ruslana73nair@mail.ru
St. Petersburg St. Elisabeth City Hospital
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

MD, PhD, urologist

Vladimir M. Obidnyak

v.obidniak@gmail.com
St. Petersburg Clinical Hospital named after St. Luka
Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

MD, urologist, Department of Urology

Ruslan M. Solh

ruslan.my.solh@gmail.com
Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship
Russian Federation, Moscow

PhD, student, Urology and Surgical Nephrology Department with Oncourology Course

  • Аляев Ю.Г., Рапопорт Л.М., и др. Мочекаменная болезнь. Актуальные вопросы диагностики и лечения // Врачебное сословие. – 2004. – № 4. – С. 9–11. [Alyaev YG, Rapoport LM, et al. Urolithiasis. Actual issues of diagnostics and treatment. Vrachebnoe soslovie. 2004;(4):9–11. (In Russ.)]
  • Акилов Ф.А., Мухтаров Ш.Т., Гиясов Ш.И., и др. Интраоперационные осложнения эндоскопического удаления камней из верхних мочевыводящих путей // Урология. – 2013. – № 2. . – С. 79–82. [Akilov FA, Muhtarov ShT, Giyasov ShI, et al. Intraoperative complications of endoscopic removal of stones from the upper urinary tract. Urologiya. 2013;(2):79-82. (In Russ.)]
  • Васильев А.Г., Комяков Б.К., Тагиров Н.С., Мусаев С.А. Чрескожная нефролитотрипсия в лечении коралловидного нефролитиаза // Профилактическая и клиническая медицина. – 2009. – № 4. – С. 183–186. [Vasiliev AG, Komyakov BK, Tagirov NS, Musaev SA. Transcutaneous nephrolitotripsy in the treatment of staghorn nephrolithiasis. Profilakticheskaya i klinicheskaya medicina. 2009;(4):183-186. (In Russ.)]
  • Воробьева Л.Е. Определение состава конкремента мочевой системы с использованием двухэнергетической компьютерной томографии. Конференция «Мочекаменная болезнь: профилактика, лечение, метафилактика». [Vorobyova LE. Determining the composition of uribary system concrements with the help of double-energy computer tomography. (Conference proceedings) Mochekamennaya bolezn: profilaktika, lechenie, metafilaktika. (In Russ.)]
  • Ненашева Н.П., Поповкин Н.П., Орлова Е.В., Носова Т.А. Динамика урологической заболеваемости по регионам Российской Федерации. Материалы пленума правления Российского общества урологов. – Саратов, 1998. – С. 215–216. [Nenasheva NP, Popovkin NP, Orlova EV, Nosova TA. Urologic pathology rate dynamics in the regions of Russian Federation. (Conference proceedings) Plenum pravleniya Rossiyskogo obschestva urologov. Saratov; 1998. P. 215-216. (In Russ.)]
  • Полиенко А.К. Минеральный состав, морфология и структура уролитов: Дис. … д-ра геол.-минерал. наук. – Томск, 2014. [Polienko AK. Mineral composition, morphology and structure of the uroliths. [dissertation] Tomsk; 2014. (In Russ.)]
  • Тагиров Н.С., Назаров Т.Х., Васильев А.Г., и др. Опыт применения чрескожной нефролитотрипсии и контактной уретеролитотрипсии в комплексном лечении мочекаменной болезни // Профилактическая и клиническая медицина. – 2012. – № 4. – С. 30–33. [Tagirov NS, Nazarov TH, Vasiliev AG, et al. The use of transcutaneous nephrolithotripsy and contact ureterolithotripsy in the complex treatment of urolithiasis. Profilakticheskaya i klinicheskaya medicina. 2012;(4):30-33. (In Russ.)]
  • Хасигов А.В., Белоусов И.И., Коган М.И. Оценка резервов почечных функций при чрескожной нефролитотомии коралловидного нефролитиаза // Урология. – 2012. – № 6. – С. 70–73. [Hasigov AV, Belousov II, Kogan MI. Estimation of renal function reserve in percutaneous nephrolithotomy of coral nephrolithiasis. Urologiya. 2012;(6):70-73. (In Russ.)]
  • Цуканова М.Н. Математические модели для выбора рациональных схем лечения и оценки эффективности дистанционной литотрипсии и литокинетической терапии при МКБ: Диc. … канд. мед. наук. – Курск, 2013. [Tsukanova MN. Mathematic models for selection of rational schemes of treatment and assessment of effectivity of distant nephrolithotripsy and lithokynetic therapy in case of urolithiasis. [dissertation] Kursk; 2013. (In Russ.)]
  • Ganpule AP, Vijayakumar M, Malpani A, Desai MR. Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) a critical review. International Journal of Surgery. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.11.028.
  • Ramello A, Vitale C, Marangella D. Epidemiology of nephrolithiasis. J Nephrol. 2000;13 (3):45-50. PMID: 11132032.
  • Türk С, Knoll T, Petrik A, et al. The European Association of Urology (EAU) Urolithiasis Guidelines. 2014. P. 16.

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.

Views

Abstract - 61

PDF (Russian) - 59

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2017 Andryukhin M.I., Golovanov S.A., Polikarpova A.M., Prosiannikov M.Y., Nersisyan L.A., Gadzhiev N.K., Tagirov N.S., Obidnyak V.M., Solh R.M.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.