Nazım Mutlu1, Seyfettin Çiftçi2, Turgay Gülecen3, Belgin Genç Öztoprak4, Arif Demir4. 1. Department of Urology, Kocaeli University School of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey. 2. Clinic of Urology, Sivas Numune Hospital, Sivas, Turkey. 3. Clinic of Urology, Hakkari State Hospital, Hakkari, Turkey. 4. Laser Technologies Research and Application Center, Kocaeli University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with the traditionally used and recommended X-ray diffraction technique (XRD) for urinary stone analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 65 patients with urinary calculi were enrolled in this prospective study. Stones were obtained after surgical or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy procedures. All stones were divided into two equal pieces. One sample was analyzed by XRD and the other by LIBS. The results were compared by the kappa (κ) and Spearman's correlation coefficient (rho) tests. RESULTS: Using LIBS, 95 components were identified from 65 stones, while XRD identified 88 components. LIBS identified 40 stones with a single pure component, 20 stones with two different components, and 5 stones with three components. XRD demonstrated 42 stones with a single component, 22 stones with two different components, and only 1 stone with three different components. There was a strong relationship in the detection of stone types between LIBS and XRD for stones components (Spearman rho, 0.866; p<0.001). There was excellent agreement between the two techniques among 38 patients with pure stones (κ index, 0.910; Spearman rho, 0.916; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that LIBS is a valid and reliable technique for determining urinary stone composition. Moreover, it is a simple, low-cost, and nondestructive technique. LIBS can be safely used in routine daily practice if our results are supported by studies with larger numbers of patients.
OBJECTIVE: We compared laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with the traditionally used and recommended X-ray diffraction technique (XRD) for urinary stone analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total, 65 patients with urinary calculi were enrolled in this prospective study. Stones were obtained after surgical or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy procedures. All stones were divided into two equal pieces. One sample was analyzed by XRD and the other by LIBS. The results were compared by the kappa (κ) and Spearman's correlation coefficient (rho) tests. RESULTS: Using LIBS, 95 components were identified from 65 stones, while XRD identified 88 components. LIBS identified 40 stones with a single pure component, 20 stones with two different components, and 5 stones with three components. XRD demonstrated 42 stones with a single component, 22 stones with two different components, and only 1 stone with three different components. There was a strong relationship in the detection of stone types between LIBS and XRD for stones components (Spearman rho, 0.866; p<0.001). There was excellent agreement between the two techniques among 38 patients with pure stones (κ index, 0.910; Spearman rho, 0.916; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that LIBS is a valid and reliable technique for determining urinary stone composition. Moreover, it is a simple, low-cost, and nondestructive technique. LIBS can be safely used in routine daily practice if our results are supported by studies with larger numbers of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Laser spectroscopy; X-ray diffraction; stone analysis; urinary calculi