Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Defining a clinically significant struvite stone: a non-randomized retrospective study

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To study the association between a stone’s struvite content and clinical outcomes and to determine a clinically significant cutoff for defining struvite stones.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective study of all patients who underwent ureteroscopy or PCNL at our institution between 2012 and 2017 and had any component of struvite in the stone analysis. Patients were divided into four groups based on percent struvite content: A (1–25%), B (26–50%), C (51–75%), and D (76–100%). Bacterial characteristics were compared between groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association between struvite content and postoperative SIRS. Log-rank test was used to compare between the four groups’ recurrence rates.

Results

A total of 123 patients were included in the study. Positive preoperative urine culture was found in 31%, 81%, 87%, and 90% of patients from group A, B, C, and D, respectively. E. Coli was the most common pathogen in group A (54%), while Proteus was the most common pathogen in groups C (53%) and D (47%). Enterococci isolation rates remained similar between groups A-D, ranging from 23 to 33%. Postoperative SIRS occurred in 2.4%, 21.3%, 26.7%and 47.4% of the patients from groups A, B, C, and D, respectively, and was associated with struvite content and age on multivariate analysis. Increasing struvite content was associated with higher 2-year recurrence rate.

Conclusions

Higher struvite content is associated with a higher frequency of traditional urea splitting bacteria in urine culture, higher risk for postoperative SIRS, and higher recurrence rate. Struvite content greater than 25% can be used to define a clinically significant struvite stone.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuzgunbay B, Turunc T, Yaycioglu O, Kayis AA, Gul U, Egilmez T, Aygun C, Ozkardes H (2011) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy for staghorn kidney stones in elderly patients. Int Urol Nephrol 43(3):639–643

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Shafi H, Shahandeh Z, Heidari B et al (2013) Bacteriological study and structural composition of staghorn stones removed by the anatrophic nephrolithotomic procedure. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transplant 24(2):418–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Streem SB (1995) Long-term incidence and risk factors for recurrent stones following percutaneous nephrostolithotomy or percutaneous nephrostolithotomy/extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for infection related calculi. J Urol 153(3 Pt 1):584–587

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rivera M, Viers B, Cockerill P, Agarwal D, Mehta R, Krambeck A (2016) Pre- and postoperative predictors of infection-related complications in patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 30(9):982–986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iqbal MW, Shin RH, Youssef RF et al (2017) Should metabolic evaluation be performed in patients with struvite stones? Urolithiasis 45(2):185–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Parkhomenko E, De Fazio A, Tran T, Thai J, Blum K, Gupta M (2017) A multi-institutional study of struvite stones: patterns of infection and colonization. J Endourol 31(5):533–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Englert KM, McAteer JA, Lingeman JE, Williams JC Jr. (2013) High carbonate level of apatite in kidney stones implies infection, but is it predictive? Urolithiasis 41(5):389–394

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Rhodes A et al (2013 ) Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2012. Crit Care Med 41(2):580–637

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flannigan R, Choy WH, Chew B, Lange D (2014) Renal struvite stones—pathogenesis, microbiology, and management strategies. Nat Rev Urol 11(6):333–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bichler K-H, Eipper E, Naber K, Braun V, Zimmermann R, Lahme S (2002) Urinary infection stones. Int J Antimicrob Agents 19(6):488–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gault M, Longerich L, Crane G et al (1995) Bacteriology of urinary tract stones. J Urol 153(4):1164–1170

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Paonessa JE, Gnessin E, Bhojani N, Williams JC Jr, Lingeman JE (2016) Preoperative bladder urine culture as a predictor of intraoperative stone culture results: clinical implications and relationship to stone composition. J Urol 196(3):769–774

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Voilette PD, Denstedt JD (2014) Standardizing the reporting of percutaneous nephrolithotomy complications. Indian J Urol 30(1):84–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Eswara JR, Lee H, Dretler SP, Sacco D (2013) The effect of delayed percutaneous nephrolithotomy on the risk of bacteremia and sepsis in patients with neuromuscular disorders. World J Urol 31(6):1611–1615

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Somani BK, Giusti G, Sun Y et al (2017) Complications associated with ureterorenoscopy (URS) related to treatment of urolithiasis: the Clinical Research Office of Endourological Society URS Global study. World J Urol 35(4):675–681

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernandez-Rodriguez A, Arrabal-Martin M, Garcia-Ruiz MJ, Arrabal-Polo MA, Pichardo-Pichardo S, Zuluaga-Gomez A The role of thiazides in the prophylaxis of recurrent calcium lithiasis. Actas Urol Espanolas. 30(3):305–309

  17. Rule AD, Lieske JC, Li X, Melton LJ 3rd, Krambeck AE, Bergstralh EJ (2014) The ROKS nomogram for predicting a second symptomatic stone episode. J Am Soc Nephrol 25(12):2878–2886

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Soygur T, Akbay A, Kupeli S (2002) Effect of potassium citrate therapy on stone recurrence and residual fragments after shockwave lithotripsy in lower caliceal calcium oxalate urolithiasis: a randomized controlled trial. J Endourol 16(3):149–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Strauss AL, Coe FL, Deutsch L, Parks JH (1982) Factors that predict relapse of calcium nephrolithiasis during treatment: a prospective study. Am J Med 72(1):17–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Griffith DP (1978) Struvite stones. Kidney Int 13(5):372–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Patterson DE, Segura JW, LeRoy AJ (1987) Long-term follow-up of patients treated by percutaneous ultrasonic lithotripsy for struvite staghorn calculi. J Endourol 1(3):177–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oliver R, Ghosh A, Geraghty R, Moore S, Somani BK (2017) Successful ureteroscopy for kidney stone disease leads to resolution of urinary tract infections: prospective outcomes with a 12-month follow-up. Cent Eur J Urol 70(4):418–423.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Walton-Diaz A, Vinay JI, Barahona J, Daels P, González M, Hidalgo JP, Palma C, Díaz P, Domenech A, Valenzuela R, Marchant F (2017) Concordance of renal stone culture: PMUC, RPUC, RSC and post-PCNL sepsis—a non-randomized prospective observation cohort study. Int Urol Nephrol 49(1):31–35

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Amihay Nevo, Mohammed Shahait, Anup Shah, Stephen Jackman & Timothy Averch

Authors
  1. Amihay Nevo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Shahait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anup Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen Jackman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy Averch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amihay Nevo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nevo, A., Shahait, M., Shah, A. et al. Defining a clinically significant struvite stone: a non-randomized retrospective study. Int Urol Nephrol 51, 585–591 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02117-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-019-02117-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation