Jump to content

Talk:Kidney stone disease/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

?

When someone developes a kidney stone, how does it affect the rest of the body? [homeostasis perhaps?]

A bigger stone poses a much greater risk. Stones bigger than 4mm can potentially get lodged in the urinary tract. A lodged stone can collect more minerals and grow. It can block urinary flow and lead to urinary infections. It also can produce hydronephrosis and intefere with the ability of the kidney to concentrate urine and ultimately to a loss of kidney function.

An infection in the kidney can be hard to treat. If treatment is not received in time an infection can spread to nearby organs and cause sepsis. A stone can even cause a kidney to swell up and eventually rupture the system of collecting tubes.

Hope that answers your question. Greg Marlow Uriflow Specialist

For kidney stones, what other clinical diagnostic medical laboratories besides LithoLink are used by clinical specialists in urology and nephrology? Or for USA clinicians does that lab represent the gold standard? unsigned

Kidney Stone Type and Density

I have a 9mm stone at the exit point of the kidney into the ureter. I will have a procedure that electonrically 'pulverizes' the stone (hopefully). The problem is that the stone could be of a hardness that it cracks in half rather than gets pulverized into sand size particles. Is there a way to determine the hardness of a stone before deciding which procedure makes the most sense for removal? Also, will my next stone be the same hardness, or does one stone not tell the story of the next, necessarily? Sometimes you can tell how easily a stone will fracture from its X-ray appearance. Although calcium oxalate is the most common component of kidney stones this chemical takes two different forms. The dihydrate which has large delicate crystals is easily fractured whereas the monohydrate is more dense and therefore harder to fracture.

High calcium as a cause?

The article contradicts itself as far as calcium being a cause of kidney stones.

From (Secondary Prevention) "There is no convincing evidence that calcium supplements increase the risk of stone formation."

But in (Addition Information) we find "Astronauts often get kidney stones because of an increase in the amount of calcium in their blood due to a loss of bone density in zero gravity."

If an increase in calcium doesn't cause kidney stones, from where does the astronaut information come?

Quoted: "Astronauts often get kidney stones because of an increase in the amount of calcium in their blood due to a loss of bone density in zero gravity."

As you've quoted, astronauts get kidney stones due to increased bone loss not due to increased calcium supplement intake. In addition to that is their abnormal urinary cycle.

I read in Readers Digest that it comes from a high protein diet.Lots of Calcium is produced to alkalinize the high acidity of protein or protein products.--Jondel 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Calcium supplements are something completely different from raised blood calcium levels due to increased bone loss. An increased dietary calcium intake does not necessarily lead to increased blood calcium levels. The body has mechanisms controlling the absorption of calcium from the gut, thus regulating blood calcium levels. So this isn't a contradiction. --WS 17:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncited,unverifiable

The following was removed. Verification, extra research, etc would be appreciated on this.--Jondel 00:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

For added information about non-medical kidney stone removal, please consult the web site www.jumpandbump.com. This site details the use of gravity and a special technique to aid the movement of the stone down the ureter and into the bladder.

Sitcom References

Have any of you noticed that a common feature in sitcoms is to have a guy get kidney stones while a woman he knows (maybe his wife) is in the hospital giving birth? Or if it is like the Seinfeld episode it isn't in a hospital. But the thing I have noticed is they always show it as being a short process to pass the stones. I have had them, and they can take a long time to pass - sometimes weeks to be completely passed. --Kalmia 08:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tea and kidney stones

There are conflicting reports about the effect of tea on the development of kidney stones. UMM article "This study found no effects from coffee, tea, or wine, but other research has reported a lower risk with these beverages."

DISSOLVING KIDNEY STONES

My 14 year old nephew recently developed kidney stones from drinking too much soda pop. His succesful treatment consisted of stopping the soda and having him drink apple cider vinegar. Apparently the acid in the vinegar dissolved the type of stones he had. I do not know what type of stones he had or have any other information. Perhaps someone can research this.:User:68.12.236.142 14:35, 18 September 2006 Miguel

Wikipedia is not the place to do research (WP:NOR), but report on external citable sources of information. Good point to start for medical topics is PubMed. "kidney stone vinegar" just 2 non-specific hits, "calculi vinegar" a little more promising, see PMID 1637908 - ignore the direct mention of vinegar to external skin of urostomy wounds to neutralise alkaline irritation, but next sentance states "Internal methods of treatment that are advocated in the literature include ingestion of cranberry juice and ascorbic acid to promote urine acidity". A search on "calculi acetic" yields further hits, but unfortunately few have listed abstracts. David Ruben Talk 14:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
FYI, cranberry juice is also high in oxalates, so that's probably not something you want to use when treating calcium oxalate kidney stones. See: Cranberry Ups Kidney Stone Risk -- 70.20.168.170 20:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For (at least) calcium oxalate stones, patients are advised to reduce urine acidity. That's why cola soft drinks are to be avoided -- they contain phosphoric acid. And I don't think that any modern doctor thinks that you can "dissolve" kidney stones. Instead, drink lots of water to rinse them away before that become too large. — goethean ॐ 14:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Calcium stones cannot be dissolved. Uric acid and cystine stones CAN be dissolved. Ingestion of vinegar, which is acetic acid, actually has no effect on acid-base balance; therefore no effect on pH of blood or urine. It would not be helpful for stones. Though an acid, the acetate (the anion or negatively charged molecule accompanying the H+ or proton) is metabolized to base or alkali: bicarbonate. So orange juice or lemonade, which have low pH can actually alkalinize the urine because not all of the citrate is citric acid. Citric acid is also an organic acid like acetic acid and will not affect urine pH. But some of the citrate in OJ and lemon juice is accompanying potassium, not protons. That citrate will be metabolized to bicarbonate and have an alkalinizing effect. Citrate helps prevent stones by binding calcium and alkalinizing the urine to increase pH and prevent uric acid stones.---David S. Goldfarb, M.D.

Celebrity Kidney Stones

Do we 'really' need a section on famous kidney stones? Most of the entries are uncited and unverifiable, and it looks like an indiscriminate collection of information to me. Miraculouschaos 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The section should be cleaned up but I don't oppose it in principle. The entries about Montaigne and Pepys should be kept. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Such trivia section is inappropriate for this article. However I can see the amount of effort required in compiling such list and reluctantly moved contents to a new article instead of deleting them.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 14:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

occurance?

how many ppl get them? Cannibalicious! 10:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted uncited questionable research

I've deleted a paragraph which was plagiarized from this website, which does not look at all like an authoritative resource on kidney stones:

http://www.youqa.cn/html/Alternative_Medicine/medicine/152597.html

If the claims are true, let's get them cited from a good source shall we?

I've been trying to add in sources. Some of the information is proving difficult to verify, unfortunately. E.g. per the "Causes" intro, what lab urine tests are routinely run for conditions of kidney stone patients? But I'll keep looking.—RJH (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Research on Calculus Kinetics R.O.C.K. Society

Where are there listings of members of the Research on Calculus Kinetics R.O.C.K. Society?...
--the zak 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive Kidney Stone Diagnostic Panel LabCorp test # 242339

Stephen W. Leslie M.D. advocates for the Comprehensive Kidney Stone Diagnostic Panel LabCorp test # 242339 --the zak (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

High protein intake as a risk factor for uric acid stones

201.17.56.112 (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Carlos Daniel Llosa

The final end product of protein metabolism is urea, not uric acid. Uric acid is the final end product of purine metabolism, not protein metabolism. However, meat is probably quite high on purines, so if by "high protein diet" one means a diet high on meat, then maybe this could cause uric acid stones. Also, there are some other acids that are the result of protein metabolism, chronic acidosis could result in uric acid precipitation, caused by urine acidification. Anyways, uric acid has nothing to do with protein metabolism, this should be corrected.I don't know the source used to back this up, but there must have been a confusion somewhere.

Baseball & Kidney Stones

While looking for notable people who have had kidney stones, I came up with a decent-sized list of pro baseball players: Tony Gwynn, Dennis Cook, Joe Mauer, Rich Aurilia, Whitey Kurowski, Tony Fernandez, Derek Bell, Jay Payton, Tim Salmon and Josh Willingham. That's more than in all the other sports categories combined. Perhaps it is because baseball is played in Summer? But the same can be said of golf, and I only found two names there: Davis Love III and Bernhard Langer. Any idea why there's such an apparent correlation between baseball and kidney stones? I couldn't find any studies on the topic.—RJH (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It does seem statistically significant, now doesn't it? Well, let's speculate. 1) BB players don't drink enough water because they don't run as aggressively nor frequently as athletes in other sports --- no exertion-stimulus to make their mouths feel dry enough to force drinking. 2) BB players chew tobacco --- maybe something in the leaves, maybe tobacco chewers drink too little water. 3) BB players sit on the bench a lot --- hot, dry, no movement. 4) BB players stand around a lot out in the hot and dry field. 5) BB players eat a lot of sunflower seeds --- salty nuts that contain calcium oxalate. Who can say? All I know is that drinking water is probably the key to the whole stone thing. --137.186.242.12 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. I hadn't heard about the possibility of chewing tobacco reducing thirst.—RJH (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename article to renal calculi?

I know this article mentions the term renal calculi in the opening sentence, and there is a redirect from it as well. However, renal calculi is the correct term for kidney stones, and there is precedent for calling commonly known conditions by their medical name (article on heart attack is called myocardial infarction). What do people think? 78.86.59.175 (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make sense first to gain a general consensus for medical article naming conventions under Wikipedia:Naming conventions. You could, for example, try raising that as a topic under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. But personally I have no issue with the suggested rename.—RJH (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The primary entry in ICD-10 is "Calculus of kidney", and the primary entry in MeSH is "Kidney calculi", so I'd recommend renaming the "stone" but not the "kidney". --Arcadian (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I firmly oppose this: the term kidney stone is unambiguous and medical jargon adds nothing to it: per WP:JARGON, we should keep it as simple as possible. This is contrary to heart attack which is a phrase used to describe various acute coronary syndromes by patients but myocardial infarction by doctors. WP:MEDMOS also has some guidance on this, I think. Moreover, the title is an important determinant of our search engine ranking. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The MEDMOS policy states "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name rather than the lay term..." and "Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought." --Arcadian (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[shift left] Based on google scholar searches:

  • "calculus of kidney" 144 ghits
  • "kidney stone" 8,690 ghits
  • "kidney calculi" 11,100 ghits
  • "renal calculi" 14,100 ghits

The last looks like the winner, based on scholarly article count. I don't think that wikipedia's search engine ranking should be relevant to the title name. A proper web crawler searches the article body for matching terms.—RJH (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course wikipedia strives to make articles as widely accessible as possible, but as they MESH/ICD-10 headings demonstrate, kidney stone is not the correct, or most technically accurate name. As the MEDMOS policy states "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name...", which it currently is not. I accept that the decision over what it should be renamed to is not immediately obvious, but I think this should be pursued. I will as suggested try raising a topic under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. 78.86.59.175 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Calculi" is plural for "calculus", and to me this would exclude "calculi" from being part of the title. If this article discusses the entire disease process, and it seems to, then the medical terminology would actually be nephrolithiasis. Antelantalk 14:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Again: that's simply medical jargon for 'kidney stones', it adds nothing to this description. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You're conflating the two. While this article's title suggests it is simply about kidney stones, the article content is also about nephrolithiasis. These are two different things. Nephrolithiasis is a condition that occurs when there are stones present in the kidney. Kidney stones are objects that may either be in the kidney (during nephrolithiasis) or may not be (after removal). This encyclopedia could in theory handle articles on both subject matters. However, as things stand, this article itself has also conflated the two. Antelantalk 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Kidney Stones and abdominal pain

I have had kidney stones as a teenager and they were extremely painful in the groin area. Like being kicked in the groin by a horse. And now, 20 years later, I have kidney stones again and this time my pain started in my upper abdomen and now the pain has moved to my back. Why am I having such a different experience this time around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.25.170.22 (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, flank pain can come from a stone in the kidney, whereas pain in the groin may be from a stone in the bladder. But a doctor, particularly a urologist, would be able to find out for certain.—RJH (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Common high-Oxalate foods

I noticed that a rather lengthy table was added to this page. It seems a little above the call for an encyclopedic article to carry this level of detail. Perhaps it could be placed in a contractable table of some sort?—RJH (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That entire section is completely unreferenced. — goethean ॐ 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well there's a reference on the table. But the whole thing seems a bit overdone, and it's redundant with a bullet in the prior section.—RJH (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Image needed?

I've just expelled a 6 mm kidney stone, if any particular image is needed I could shot it.--84.222.213.204 (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You could post it to: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Kidney_stone . Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do kidney stones occur?

I wonder why some kidney stones occur in some peoples urinary system? i just wonder why that is so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.226.37.124 (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

highly effective solution and preventative

Drinking Kangen water or some other highly alkalized water completely dissolves many if not all kidney stones, and certainly prevents more from forming. This fact ought to be included for the sake of all those people suffering from the terrible pain caused by kidney stones as well as the allopathic medical establishment's ignorance or rejection of the simple solution to many ills: drinking water with a pH of 8.5 to 9.5. Observe how the causes of kidney stones are all acids. Having an acidic condition in the body predisposes it to innumerable degenerative and painful conditions. Drinking adequate water, especially alkalized water, goes far in creating and maintaining good health. Lori722 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Lori722 11/25/08

Wikipedia is not the place for giving out unreferenced medical advice. If a basic solution alone solves the problem, find a reference for it.
Delving into the content of your post, I rather think that if drinking a mild basic solution were all that was necessary, that this would be common knowledge by now. I suspect you would reply that it's all simply a conspiracy by the medical establishment, which is which such a conversation would be a waste of time. --Saforrest (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you are supposed to avoid acidic liquids if you are a kidney stone sufferer. — goethean ॐ 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Low pH (acidic) is preferred for dissolving non-oxalate kidney stones. e.g. vitamin C (vinegar is metabolized).

what is kidney stone

Kidney stone means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.40.60 (talk) 10:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

neck and pain

there is a nerve between your shoulder and your neck and if you have surgery because you have paine in your shoulder and those doctors mess up and get your nerve then in your neck you'll have a reaction of burning in your neck if this happens to you try to not be in the sun that long or it will get worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.201.36 (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


And this has *WHAT* to do with Kidney Stones, exactly? Kailey elise (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

oxalate replacement??!!

yo people.. i just wanna ask about oxalate!! Is there anything that can replace oxalate??

yo.. peace out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.241.186 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Size, Shape and Composition

The article describes 3 types of kidney stones, but it doesn't describe what each looks like.

I have seen pictures of smooth stones (like the tip of the femur) and jagged stones. Why is that?

Additional medicnes causing kidney stones

Is there an expanded list of drugs that cause, or likely to cause, kidney stones? Anecdotally speaking, my doctor said regarding trileptal (oxcarbazepine) to watch out for them. Six acute episodes and four years worth of stones later, I cannot seem to locate any relevant data tying the drug and this side effect. 72.231.177.30 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)s.k. clifton park NY72.231.177.30 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"International Kidney Stone Institute" looks like some private enterprise looking for advertising/donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.235.36 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw a kidney stone.

I drank six cups of milk per day in the past weekend and today I saw a kidney stone with a drop of blood. But today I only drank two cups this morning. Is this bad? Or is it my body's way of removing the excess of calcium? I guess I'll drink less milk then. I'll minimize it to five cups then. More information is needed in this article about "calcium oxalate stones". Yvonne Liu 17:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read on the subject ,it sounds like reduced calcium intake can, ironically, result in kidney stones.[1] , I take a calcium supplement, reduce my red meat intake and drink some lemonade daily. Shrug.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Kidney stones are(ureterolithiasis) or (nephrolithiasis) ?

It should be noticed that at the beginning of the sentence, after kidney stones, ureterolithiasis is written in brackets.

The term nephrolithiasis can be used to describe the condition of having kidney stones, and ureterolithiasis can be used to describe the condition of having stones in the ureter, but the topic sentence seems to be unrelated with the article.

"Kidney stones (ureterolithiasis) result from stones or renal calculi (from Latin ren, renes, "kidney" and calculi, "pebbles")[1] in the ureter. "
This sentence may be need to alter as follow:
"Kidney stones (nephrolithiasis) result from stones or renal calculi (from Latin ren, renes, "kidney" and calculi, "pebbles")[1] in the kidney."

See also section

Per WP:SEEALSO. It mentions that terms already in the article are not needed in a see also section. And terms that only tangentially apply should not appear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It states only that including a link under "See also" is a matter of judgment and common sense, and that an annotation can be included if the connection is unclear. I have seen numerous instances where editors preferred to keep a duplicate link in the "See also" section, so that guideline is not an absolute. Links may be excluded if it would make the article too long, but the current list does not appear excessive. That being said, I'm sure we can find a satisfactory compromise.—RJH (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Many of them where tangential at best. Listing which medical specialty every disease fall under would not be vary useful. The rest of them are already in the article. Per WP:DUE is do not see why cysteinuria a rare genetic condition was mentioned here when it is already mentioned under causes in the text. Why is IVP mentioned when it is no longer a commonly used method of diagnosis and is already discussed under diagnosis. I am happy to discuss each one by one and to work on improving this article but I do not think in general creating lists of terms adds to Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here are the links from the section you deleted that are not duplicated in the article:
I would say that general medical professions dealing with the kidneys and urinary tract may be of interest to the readers of this article, so I don't see a problem in including those. It would appear to fall under the common sense clause. I guess you consider urinary retention covered by the bladder stone article? (Although perhaps a casual reader like me might not know that.)—RJH (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Moved List of kidney stone formers to the history section. Urinary retention may be cause by bladder stones but that would be exceedingly rare. The most common cause is prostate problems. We have 23,000 medical articles. Listing in a see also section which specialties each fall into I do not think is a good idea. We have categories for that thus I consider these already covered under categories.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Shrug. So be it.—RJH (talk)

Kidney stone flushing

In the novel 'East of Eden' I read this: "Right here?" he asked, and exerted a little pressure on the small of her back. "No? Here? Does this hurt?" So. Well, I think you just need a kidney flushing." He left yellow, green, and red pills to be taken in sequence. The pills did good work.

I am wondering what type of substance those pills would be. I searched for 'kidney flushing' but didn't find an article on it. Google showed me things like -blocked link- and http://curezone.com/cleanse/kidney/default.asp . Kidney flushing in that case involves drinking things like green tea, lemon juice, olive oil and so on. But only liquids. I still don't know what solid 'kidney flushing' pills would of contained.

Someone with medical knowledge could help here. Even if 'kidney flushing' is a pseudoscience at best, the process still deserves a mention in the article, if not it's own one.

From personal experience, a strong pain killer will sometimes stop the spasms of uninary colic and allow the stone to pass. That suggests that at least one component to the 'medical cocktail' mentioned would be such a pain killer. 50.124.139.7 (talk) 04:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

J1812 (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a diuretic?—RJH (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It's covered under expulsion therapy and also under the medical management, in the past sentence.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Kidney stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Will provide a few comments over the next few days:

  • Typically we do not use patient ( here it is used about 15 times ).
I have eliminated all instances of the term "patient". DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of words that are technical and need to be either linked or simplified ie "Postrenal azotemia and hydronephrosis" and "renal colic" for example
I have provided links for all technical terms, including postrenal azotemia, hydronephrosis, and renal colic. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Units should be both in SI and American ( yes there are still lots who use those other units sigh )
I have added conversion templates where applicable. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The section on cause mixes cause and pathophysiology. IMO would be best to separate the two. Molecular mechanisms would be under patho. What proportion is due to genetics, diet, meds, lifestyle etc would be under cause.
I have reorganized text and created a ==Pathophysiology== section. DiverDave (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Classification may be best as a subheading under diagnosis.
This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the textbooks need ISBNs added
All books have ISBN except McNutt (there is no ISBN for this source published in 1893) and Litwin (this is not really a textbook, but rather a 716 page report). DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The section on managements seems to be a mix of preventative measures and treatment measures. The Preventative stuff (diuretics, urine alkalization) should be move to that section. Some of the stuff (urine alkalization) does not have any refs.
This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The section on signs and symptoms starts with "Signs of urolithiasis include oliguria". I have seen many kidney stones in my carrier and not one person presented complaining of oliguria. I see flank pain radiating to the groin. It would be good if this section presented the most common symptoms first (also what percentage of kidney stones present with each symtom?)
This issue has been addressed. DiverDave (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Will add more as time goes on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced primary research studies with review articles and textbook refs in all instances where practical. DiverDave (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the status of this review? The writer seems to have addressed everything so I trust more comments are forthcoming soon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Away. Will check the rest of the article next week. The issue of primary research studies has not been fully addressed. With a topic of this importance plenty of review articles exist. Not sure if DriverDave is still working on this? So right now the article is on hold.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we may have some copyright violations that need to be cleaned up. I spot-checked just one source, and here's what I found:

Text
"The majority of indwelling ureteral stents can be removed during an office visit under topical anesthesia after resolution of the urolithiasis.[86]"
Source
"The majority of indwelling ureteral stents can be removed in the office with topical anesthesia using a flexible cytoscope and grasper."
Copyvio has been addressed; text now reads: "Most ureteral stents can be removed during an office visit under topical anesthesia after resolution of the urolithiasis." DiverDave (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What I'd originally meant to say is this: The citations are a little odd. Normally, if you're citing a book only once, then you cite it just like anything else, without using shortened footnotes. Also, if you're supplying an ISBN, there's not really any need for the links to books.google.com, but if you want to, then you might want to read WP:CITE#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages on how to shorten the links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just corrected this situation. Thanks for clarifying this point; I find the Notes and References sections to be the most difficult parts to get correctly formatted. DiverDave (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Great will continue with the review in a couple of days.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay. Will look again tomorrow and continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There are still some none review articles used as references and some of the references are more than 10 years old such as this PMID 7504361 and this PMID 9818798 Wondering if we could use more uptodate sources?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these are signs or symptoms "Postrenal azotemia and hydronephrosis can be observed following the obstruction of urine flow through one or both ureters.[4]" but would be more reasonable classificed as complications.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to include the character of pain to the symptoms section (as in stabbing, radiating, etc)? As there is a graphic illustrating the referred pain locations, it would seem potentially appropriate. On the other hand, there is the risk of a wikipedia self-diagnosis. Thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Progress

This article has been under review now for 65 days. If there are outstanding problems then best to fail the nomination now. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

All the concerns above seem to be addressed. The one tweak above can be reworded but it's find as is for GA. Since further reminders have gone unheeded, I'm closing the review. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Error with convert function

I think there is a problem with the "convert" function. When I was browsing this entry I noticed the statement "consumed 1,000 milligrams (15 gr) of supplemental calcium". When I went to correct the fact that 1,000mg is equal to 1gr, I noticed this was created by the command (bracket-bracket)convert|1000|mg|gr(bracket-bracket). Seems to be an error with this function, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talbotron22 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

"gr", at least in this case, is grains, not grams. I don't know whether that was intended or not, though. – RobinHood70 talk 03:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent observation, RobinHood70! The conversion from milligrams to grains ("...women who consumed 1,000 milligrams (15 grains) of supplemental calcium") was indeed intentional, although most of us do not think in terms of the grain unit. Other available options for mass units would have been either 0.564 drams, or 0.0353 ounces. Both of these numbers are even more awkward than 15 grains, IMHO. It may ultimately be best to simply leave the units in milligrams.... DiverDave (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'll second the leaving units in metric. Wow! I had nearly forgotten Grain units! Many, many ages ago, we'd administer 1/4 grain of morphine. 16 milligrams is FAR more uniform than 1/4 grain.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fluoridation of drinking water

I've removed the statement that water flouridation may cause kidney stones purely on the basis of the source that's given. It cites what purports to be a publication of the National Academy of Sciences; however, the copy that is linked to is hosted on [2], and I challenge anyone to go look at that site and then come back here and claim it can be relied upon to report the NAS's words faithfully. If someone can link to the same paper hosted somewhere reliable, or has a paper copy and can swear the linked version hasn't been altered, go ahead and put it back in. GideonF (talk) 09:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the source, though this time from the National Academy of Sciences website. Though the the linked version at the previous website is indeed unaltered, I certainly agree that the actionpa.org website cannot be considered a reliable source. Unforntunately, that is the only place I could find the full pdf file. DiverDave (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks.GideonF (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Imaging caption - (L) rather than (R)?

"Axial CT scan of abdomen without contrast, showing a 3mm stone (marked by an arrow) in the right proximal ureter"

Isn't this the (L) proximal ureter? The opposite stide is marked (R) on the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.54.84 (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I'd dismiss such a comment, except that it DOES appear to be on the left side. If the liver is what I'm seeing on the left side of the image and to be honest, it IS looking a lot like liver... Any radiologist types out there to comment?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It is the left yes sorry. I added a better quality picture without fixing the side of the stone in the text. No liver in that slice just some bowel with intra luminal stool on the right. Note the little R... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Radiolucent stones

In the ultrasound paragraph under imaging, there is a sentence that reads "Radiolucent stones, which do not appear on CT scans, may show up on ultrasound imaging studies". This is incorrect, no? All stones (except for those rare drug residue stones) - even radiolucent ones - are visible on CT. That's what makes CT so much more useful than plain film. If we couldn't see radiolucent stones on CT, we might as well just get KUBs on everyone and call it a day.

Here's an old article from the early days of CT that confirms it: http://www.ajronline.org/content/142/3/545.full.pdf+html

And a newer one: http://radiology.rsna.org/content/250/3/813.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.157.14 (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Mechanical horse

There is a picture captioned "1935 mechanical horse used against ureteral stones". Such a bizarre contraption surely deserves a line or two in the article explaining what it is all about? Putney Bridge (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

10 months ago i had a large kidney stone which was stuck in my tube ,stopping everything from working as they should ,and i got a mass build up so i had a tube coming out of my side and drained into a pouch ,i had it for 4 weeks ,then i ad a operation ,it all got removed which i was relieved .anyway following up appointment i ad to go for X-rays ,then i was asked to return to speak to my doctor of which he informed me i have got another stone ,but my doctor told me that for it to reaccur it was very unlikely once i had one that big ,and if one did occur it would not be prob 5 years on plus .and it not been a year yet since my first stone ,could u explain why this as occured .thankyou M Commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.199.212 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it in the other kidney? Regards, RJH (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Frequency of occurrence

I notice that frequency of occurrence is given only for the first three types of stones. The last category ("Other") lumps together several types of stones, all considered rare. I think it would be helpful to put a number on this, if it can be done. Also, Type 1 (calcium stones) are 80% of cases in the U.S. For the other types, no country or region is specified. This seems inconsistent. ChrisWinter (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources for the suggested information, that would be helpful. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Need Your Opinion

Hello Editors I added a subsection of ayurvedic treatment in the kidney stone page. I also wanted to add a list of medicines under this subtopic, like: Pashanbhed Gana ,Varunadi Kwath. Needed your opinion regarding this. If medicines cannot be added to the page we can atleast add some core ingredients of these medicines. Barkhadhamechai (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Urether stone loosener mechanical horse.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Urether stone loosener mechanical horse.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Urether stone loosener mechanical horse.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Well that's a shame. It's a great pic, in a retro type of way. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Causes: Refined Sugars and High Fructose Corn Syrup.

Under causes "high fructose corn syrup" mentioned as a cause, but the citation references a study that focuses solely on pure fructose consumption not fructose and glucose. It also seems redundant to mention high fructose corn syrup and refined sugars since refined sugars covers high fructose corn syrup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miso beno (talk • contribs) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Male and female urinary systems and symptoms of kidney stones

Males and females have different urinary systems, the man's is longer, does this mean the man suffers more? Although I understand the woman's is wider... Or at least... her urinary system is tied to the uterus, well I dont really know, I'm no expert in anatomy...Undead Herle King (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I know this is no place for questions, but the article should address if there is any meaningful difference between the male and female experience through this ailment as tests have proven by quantifying pain the same way they have quantified pain to determine women ahs a higher tolerance to painUndead Herle King (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


2012 review article

Sakhaee, K (2012 Jun). "Kidney stones 2012: pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management". The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism. 97 (6): 1847–60. PMID 22466339. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 04:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What's an "orgasim"?

"male orgasim can decrease formation of stones."
Is that like an orgasm, but for a nucular age? Also, how exactly does it decrease formation of stones, and whose stones does it decrease the formation of? Male or female stones? Was this tested on laboratory mice? If so, was it controlled for presence (or absence of) cadmium in the post-sex cigarettes, or did the mice light up a cig as well? If so, who provided them with such small cigarettes, and has it been attempted to use nicotine addiction in rats as a form of deratization? Or did the smoker mice and rats running around the fields, as well as the human settlements, prove too much of a fire hazard?
I believe that this article would benefit greatly from further examination of these questions.--92.36.132.101 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No one ever sat down and gave you the talk, now did they? Charles35 (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible error

Too busy/lazy to look into this, but is there not a contradiction here?:

"On the other hand, high dietary intake of potassium appears to reduce the risk of stone formation because potassium promotes the urinary excretion of citrate, an inhibitor of urinary crystal formation. High dietary intake of magnesium also appears to reduce the risk of stone formation somewhat, because like citrate, magnesium is also an inhibitor of urinary crystal formation.[6]"

Shmaristotle (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

PH or acid-alkaline balance relative to calcium oxalate chart entry

Currently the table entry for calcium oxalate stones says under the column "circumstances" i.e., that they form, "when urine is alkaline (ph>5.5)". Med.nyu.edu asserts in relation to citrate "... it makes the urine less acidic, which inhibits the development of both calcium oxylate and uric acid stones." So, it seems there's some bad information somewhere. Either Wikipedia is correct,that calcium oxalate stones form when urine pH is > 5.5, or med.nyu.edu is correct, that alkaline urine inhibits formation of calcium oxalate stones, but it doesn't seem that both sites can be correct, unless there's some other language problem such as misreading the header meaning of "circumstances."

Here's another reference, nlm.nih.gov says, "Acidic urine is associated with xanthine, cystine, uric acid, and calcium oxalate stones. Alkaline urine is associated with calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, and magnesium phosphate stones." Gzuufy (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The 'kidney stone belt'?

There is quite a bit of detail in the article about the geographic distribution with specific mention of the 'Middle East', which is helpful, but there is also mention of the 'kidney stone belt' in the 'southern US' which is quite vague. Please elaborate. 50.124.139.7 (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dubious -- "When a stone causes no symptoms, watchful waiting is a valid option."

I think we should change it to: "When a stone causes minor symptoms, watchful waiting is a valid option."

If there are "no symptoms" then the doctor and patient don't know there's something to watch at all. Totoro33 (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

One picks up stones on CT all the time. These do not need treatment unless they cause symptoms. You tell the person about it and say that at some point they may develop pain but then again may not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that makes sense, except that I'd consider a stone on CT to be a "symptom." However, I'm not a doctor, so I could be misunderstanding the word symptom. Thanks. Totoro33 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we could say something like, "When a stone causes no perceived symptoms, watchful waiting is a valid option."Totoro33 (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
"symptom" is what the person experiences. A stone on a CT is a radiological finding not a symptom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification... Totoro33 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kidney_stone_disease/Archive_1&oldid=1252759604"