Literature DB >> 20639021

Adequacy of a single 24-hour urine collection for metabolic evaluation of recurrent nephrolithiasis.

Scott M Castle1, Matthew R Cooperberg, Natalia Sadetsky, Brian H Eisner, Marshall L Stoller.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is much debate about whether 1 or 2, 24-hour urinalyses are adequate for metabolic evaluation of stone formers. We determined whether repeat 24-hour urine collection provides information similar to that of the initial 24-hour urine collection and whether repeat collection is necessary.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 2, 24-hour urine collections in 777 patients obtained from 2001 to 2005. Samples were collected 3 days or less apart before pharmacological intervention and analyzed elsewhere for routine stone risk profiles of urine calcium, oxalate, citrate, uric acid, sodium, potassium, magnesium, phosphorus, ammonium, chloride, urea nitrogen and creatinine.
RESULTS: No parameters showed a statistically significant difference between 24-hour urine samples 1 and 2 when mean values were compared (pairwise t test each p >0.05, range 0.06 to 0.87). Using Pearson's correlation all parameters showed positive correlation coefficients (r = 0.68 to 0.89, each p <0.0001). The mean of individual patient differences in samples 1 and 2 were compared to 0 and 6 of 12 showed no difference (p >0.05) while for the remaining 6 p value was <0.05. The percent difference was 0.5% to 4.19% for all urinary parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: One 24-hour urine sample is sufficient for metabolic evaluation of recurrent stone disease. There is no significant difference in 12 urinary parameters between 24-hour urine samples collected within 3 days of each other. This information is useful to providers and may decrease patient inconvenience and the overall cost of metabolic stone evaluation. Copyright (c) 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20639021     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.129

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  13 in total

1.  Variations between two 24-hour urine collections in patients presenting to a tertiary stone clinic.

Authors:  Madhur Nayan; Mohamed A Elkoushy; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Stones. A matter of doubt--how best to evaluate stone formers.

Authors:  Fredric L Coe
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Update on the evaluation of repeated stone formers.

Authors:  Adam O Kadlec; Thomas M Turk
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Clinical presentation and metabolic features of overt and occult urolithiasis.

Authors:  Cesare Polito; Andrea Apicella; Antonio Marte; Giuseppe Signoriello; Angela La Manna
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2011-06-19       Impact factor: 3.714

Review 5.  Updates in the Metabolic Management of Calcium Stones.

Authors:  Kristina L Penniston; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 3.092

6.  Approach to the Adult Kidney Stone Former.

Authors:  Naim Maalouf
Journal:  Clin Rev Bone Miner Metab       Date:  2012-03

7.  Metabolic risk factors and the effect of metaphylaxis in pediatric stone disease with hypocitraturia.

Authors:  Onur Karsli; Volkan Izol; I Atilla Aridogan; Ali Borekoglu; Nihat Satar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2012-12-30       Impact factor: 3.436

8.  Proton-pump inhibitors associated with decreased urinary citrate excretion.

Authors:  Parth M Patel; Alexander M Kandabarow; Eseosa Aiwerioghene; Enrique Blanco-Martinez; Spencer Hart; David J Leehey; Ahmer Farooq; Kristin G Baldea; Thomas M T Turk
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2020-11-18       Impact factor: 2.370

Review 9.  Integration and utilization of modern technologies in nephrolithiasis research.

Authors:  Michael S Borofsky; Casey A Dauw; Andrew Cohen; James C Williams; Andrew P Evan; James E Lingeman
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-08-23       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 10.  The Urine Anion Gap: Common Misconceptions.

Authors:  Jaime Uribarri; Man S Oh
Journal:  J Am Soc Nephrol       Date:  2021-03-05       Impact factor: 10.121

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.