ArticleWorld journal of urology2025
Risk stratification for repeat stone surgery: the role of stone composition.
Article in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing stone composition from pure dust: feasibility and analytic yield of FTIR spectroscopy during suction-assisted flexible ureteroscopy.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Machine learning integrating CT radiomics and clinical variables for preoperative prediction of renal uric acid stones: a model development and validation study.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
- Multi-habitat microbiome profiling identifies habitat-dependent alterations and complementary discriminatory information in urolithiasis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
- Multi-target litholytic strategy toward calcium oxalate stone therapy: a fundamental study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ultrasound-CT fusion in ureteral stone Follow-Up: A prospective accuracy study benchmarked against ureteroscopy.Urolithiasis · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeKidney stones have a recurrence risk of 30-50% within five years, with surgical recurrence often being the most clinically significant and burdensome. Stone composition results obtained after surgery are readily available and typically precede metabolic evaluation. However, only few, relatively small studies, correlated stone composition with surgical reccurence. This study aims to determine whether stone composition alone can reliably predict recurrent stone surgery, offering insights into personalized management strategies.
methodsA retrospective analysis of surgically treated patients with an available stone composition analysis performed between 2013 and 2020 in a large healthcare provider database. Data were analyzed for up to 5 years from the initial surgery.
results8,561 patients underwent surgical procedures for stones and 2,097 (24.5%) had repeat surgery within 5 years. Compared to calcium oxalate stone formers, individuals forming uric acid, calcium phosphate, infection, brushite, and cystine stones were 1.5, 1.5, 1.87, 2.64, and 2.71 times more likely, respectively, to undergo a second stone surgery (p < 0.001). The median time for repeat stone surgery in cystine and infection stone formers was significantly shorter compared to calcium oxalate (p < 0.01).
conclusionsStone composition significantly affects the 5-year surgical recurrence rates and the median time to recurrence, with non-calcium oxalate stone formers at a higher risk for recurrence. Sharing this information with patients may improve compliance with preventive strategies, including comprehensive metabolic evaluation and adherence to preventive therapy. Emphasizing this risk may help prioritize proactive management in high-risk patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.