4.1 Article

Whitlockite structures in kidney stones indicate infectious origin: a scanning electron microscopy and Synchrotron Radiation investigation

期刊

COMPTES RENDUS CHIMIE
卷 25, 期 -, 页码 343-354

出版社

ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.5802/crchim.80

关键词

Kidney stone; Infection; Whitlockite; Diagnosis; X-ray scattering; SEM

资金

  1. Physics and Chem- istry Institutes of Centre national de la recherche scientifique
  2. [ANR-09-BLAN-0120- 02]
  3. [ANR-12-BS080022]
  4. [ANR-13-JSV-10010-01]
  5. [UPMC CVG1205]
  6. [CORDDIM-2013- COD130042]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This contribution investigated the presence of iron in kidney stones containing Whitlockite (Wk), the relationship between bacterial imprints and the presence of Wk, and the connection between the crystal size of Wk-bearing stones and infection. The findings showed that iron is not present in the stoichiometry of Wk. Bacterial imprints were observed in kidney stones with varying levels of Wk content. The study also proposed FE-SEM as a diagnostic tool for stone patients with negative urine culture but with Wk-containing stones, low carbonate levels in apatite, and no struvite. Such a diagnostic tool would greatly benefit clinicians.
In this contribution dedicated to kidney stones containing Whitlockite (Wk), we addressed three questions, namely, the presence of iron in Wk, the relationship between bacterial imprints and the presence of Wk, and finally the relationship between the crystal size of Wk-bearing stones and infection. The complete dataset indicates that iron is not present in our Wk stoichiometry. We also note the presence of bacterial imprints for kidney stones with a high, but sometimes a low content, of Wk. Finally, we propose FE-SEM as a diagnostic tool for stone patients who have a negative urine culture associated with kidney stones containing less than 20% by weight Wk, a low level of carbonate in apatite, and no struvite. Such a diagnostic tool would represent a significant benefit to the clinician.

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

4.1
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