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

Ron Gilad, James Williams, Kalba D. Usman, Ronen Holland, Shay Golan, Ruth Tor, David Lifshitz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)135-140
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Nephrology
Volume30
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2017

Fingerprint

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
Urinary Calculi
Cystine
X-Ray Diffraction
Tomography
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Chemical analysis
  • FT-IR
  • Nephrolithiasis
  • Stone composition

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Interpreting the results of chemical stone analysis in the era of modern stone analysis techniques. / Gilad, Ron; Williams, James; Usman, Kalba D.; Holland, Ronen; Golan, Shay; Tor, Ruth; Lifshitz, David.

In: Journal of Nephrology, Vol. 30, No. 1, 01.02.2017, p. 135-140.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gilad, Ron ; Williams, James ; Usman, Kalba D. ; Holland, Ronen ; Golan, Shay ; Tor, Ruth ; Lifshitz, David. / Interpreting the results of chemical stone analysis in the era of modern stone analysis techniques. In: Journal of Nephrology. 2017 ; Vol. 30, No. 1. pp. 135-140.
@article{b91f6f1b27224341ba3f4e8f30890bb7,
title = "Interpreting the results of chemical stone analysis in the era of modern stone analysis techniques",
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 = "Chemical analysis, FT-IR, Nephrolithiasis, Stone composition",
author = "Ron Gilad and James Williams and Usman, {Kalba D.} and Ronen Holland and Shay Golan and Ruth Tor and David Lifshitz",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s40620-016-0274-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "30",
pages = "135--140",
journal = "Journal of Nephrology",
issn = "1121-8428",
publisher = "Wichtig Publishing",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Interpreting the results of chemical stone analysis in the era of modern stone analysis techniques

AU - Gilad, Ron

AU - Williams, James

AU - Usman, Kalba D.

AU - Holland, Ronen

AU - Golan, Shay

AU - Tor, Ruth

AU - Lifshitz, David

PY - 2017/2/1

Y1 - 2017/2/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Chemical analysis

KW - FT-IR

KW - Nephrolithiasis

KW - Stone composition

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013304476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013304476&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40620-016-0274-9

DO - 10.1007/s40620-016-0274-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 26956131

AN - SCOPUS:85013304476

VL - 30

SP - 135

EP - 140

JO - Journal of Nephrology

JF - Journal of Nephrology

SN - 1121-8428

IS - 1

ER -