4.6 Review

Probiotics in the Prevention of the Calcium Oxalate Urolithiasis

期刊

CELLS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells11020284

关键词

oxalate metabolism; probiotics; kidney stones

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Nephrolithiasis ranks third in prevalence among urological diseases, with the increasing incidence likely attributed to unhealthy dietary and lifestyle changes in developed countries. Oxalate urolithiasis, making up about 80% of cases, poses the highest risk of recurrence. Frequent relapses lead to severe complications and high treatment costs.
Nephrolithiasis ranks third among urological diseases in terms of prevalence, making up about 15% of cases. The continued increase in the incidence of nephrolithiasis is most probably due to changes in eating habits (high protein, sodium, and sugar diets) and lifestyle (reduced physical activity) in all developed countries. Some 80% of all kidney stones cases are oxalate urolithiasis, which is also characterized by the highest risk of recurrence. Frequent relapses of nephrolithiasis contribute to severe complications and high treatment costs. Unfortunately, there is no known effective way to prevent urolithiasis at present. In cases of diet-related urolithiasis, dietary changes may prevent recurrence. However, in some patients, the condition is unrelated to diet; in such cases, there is evidence to support the use of stone-related medications. Interestingly, a growing body of evidence indicates the potential of the microbiome to reduce the risk of developing renal colic. Previous studies have primarily focused on the use of Oxalobacter formigenes in patients with urolithiasis. Unfortunately, this bacterium is not an ideal probiotic due to its antibiotic sensitivity and low pH. Therefore, subsequent studies sought to find bacteria which are capable of oxalate degradation, focusing on well-known probiotics including Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium strains, Eubacterium lentum, Enterococcus faecalis, and Escherichia coli.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据