STONE
DISEASE
Biochemical
and physicochemical presentations of patients with brushite stones
Pak CY, Poindexter JR, Peterson RD, Heller HJ
Center for Mineral Metabolism and Clinical Research, University of Texas
Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
J Urol. 2004; 171: 1046-9
- Purpose:
We determined whether the biochemical and physicochemical backgrounds
of patients with brushite stones differ from those with hydroxyapatite
and calcium oxalate stones.
- Materials
and Methods: From a computer data base of patients completing
ambulatory evaluation 19 with brushite stones, 24 with hydroxyapatite
stones and 762 with calcium oxalate stones were identified with the
specified composition in greater than 70% of stones.
-
Results:
Absorptive hypercalciuria type I was present in 63% of patients with
brushite, 17% with hydroxyapatite and 30% with calcium oxalate stones.
Distal renal tubular acidosis was noted in 32% of patients with brushite,
42% with hydroxyapatite and 3% with calcium oxalate stones. Mean urinary
calcium in the brushite group was significantly higher than in the hydroxyapatite
and calcium oxalate groups (265 +/- 125 vs 186 +/- 103 and 187 +/- 95
mg daily, respectively). Urinary pH in the brushite group was slightly
but significantly higher than in the calcium oxalate group (6.15 +/-
0.30 vs 5.91 +/- 0.42). The brushite relative saturation ratio in the
brushite group was marginally higher than in the hydroxyapatite group
and significantly higher than in the calcium oxalate group (3.25 +/-
2.03 vs 2.34 +/- 1.51 and 1.83 +/- 1.66, respectively).
-
Conclusion:
Patients with predominantly brushite stones could be distinguished from
those with predominantly hydroxyapatite and calcium oxalate stones by
higher urinary saturation with respect to brushite due mainly to hypercalciuria
from absorptive hypercalciuria.
- Editorial
Comment
Brushite stone formers constitute a particularly aggressive and difficult-to-treat
subset of calcium stone formers. The low fragility of brushite stones
observed in vitro is consistent with the clinical finding that they
are relatively SWL-resistant; consequently, these stones typically require
endoscopic treatment. Moreover, brushite stone formers tend to be highly
metabolically active, with high recurrence rates even when patients
have been rendered stone free after surgery (1). Therefore, insight
into the physicochemical causes of brushite stone formation may facilitate
management of these patients, who in my practice constitute a most challenging
group of patients to manage medically.
Pak and colleagues searched their stone registry to identify 19 patients
with predominantly brushite stones and 24 with predominantly hydroxyapatite
stones, then compared them with a control group of 762 calcium oxalate
stone formers to discern differences in urinary physicochemisty. Brushite
stone formers were found to have urine that is significantly more supersaturated
with respect to brushite than the other 2 groups, primarily as a result
of higher urinary calcium. Indeed, absorptive hypercalciuria was overrepresented
in the brushite group (63%) and underrepresented in the hydroxyapatite
group (17%) compared with the calcium oxalate group (30%). Not surprisingly,
urinary pH was also higher in the brushite and hydroxyapaptite groups
than the calcium oxalate group.
The authors raised the question as to why brushite, which represents
a relatively unstable form of calcium phosphate that forms at lower
urine pH than hydroxyapatite, fails to undergo conversion to hydroxyapatite
during normal periods of urinary alkalinization. They speculate that
perhaps urinary inhibitors prevent the transformation. Equally important
in my mind, is why these patients are so difficult to treat medically.
Anecdotally, correction of their hypercalciuria often fails to result
in a corresponding reduced rate of stone recurrence as is typically
seen with calcium oxalate stone formers. Whether pH manipulation (i.e.,
lowering of urine pH) can prevent brushite stone formation requires
further clinical investigation, but it is likely to be a difficult and
potentially dangerous (risk of bone loss) maneuver. For now, clinical
studies such as these, may help shed some light on this difficult group
of patients.
Reference
1. Klee LW, Brito CG, Lingeman JE: The clinical implications of brushite
calculi. J. Urol. 1991, 145: 715-8.
Dr.
Margaret S. Pearle
Associate Professor of Urology
University of Texas Southwestern Med Ctr
Dallas, Texas, USA
|