Introduction: Our aim was to predict the chemical composition of kidney stones according to their twinkle artefact (TA) features obtained by in vivo color Doppler ultrasonography and to determine the potential factors affecting the formation and intensity of TAs. Materials and Methods: A total of 101 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. All patients were evaluated for TAs using color Doppler ultrasonography. All stones were subjected to chemical analysis. The relationships between the TA and the size and chemical composition of the stone, presence of hydronephrosis and body mass index (BMI) were evaluated statistically. Results: According to the results of the chemical analysis, 66 (65.3%) were calcium oxalate stones. It was found that the in vivo TA intensity did not predict cystine and calcium oxalate monohydrate stones (p > 0.05) and the intensity of TAs increases with increasing BMI (p = 0.002). Conclusion: The present study is the first to show that TAs may not be reliable in overweight patients. The TAs could not predict the chemical composition of stones; so future comprehensive in vivo studies will clarify the role of TAs in the prediction of the stone type preoperatively.

Keywords:
Ultrasonography, Urinary system stone disease, Stone type, Twinkle artefact
1.
Kasidas GP, Samuell CT, Weir TB: Renal stone analysis: why and how? Ann Clin Biochem 2004;41:91-97.
2.
Milliner DS: Epidemiology of calcium oxalate urolithiasis in man; in Khan SR (ed): Calcium Oxalate in Biological Systems. Boca Raton, CRC Press, 1995, pp 169-178.
3.
Carr LK, D'A Honey J, Jewett MA, et al: New stone formation: a comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Urol 1996;155:1565-1567.
4.
Sun BY, Lee YH, Jiaan BP, et al: Recurrence rate and risk factors for urinary calculi after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1996;156:903-906.
5.
Alan C, Koçoğlu H, Kosar S, et al: Role of twinkling artifact in characterization of urinary calculi. Actas Urol Esp 2011;35:396-402.
6.
Curhan GC, Rimm EB, Willett WC, et al: Regional variation in nephrolithiasis incidence and prevalence among United States men. J Urol 1994;151:838-841.
7.
Brener ZZ, Winchester JF, Salman H, et al: Nephrolithiasis: evaluation and management. South Med J 2011;104:133-139.
8.
Joseph P, Mandal AK, Singh SK, et al: Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study. J Urol 2002;167:1968-1971.
9.
Demirel A, Suma S: The efficacy of non-contrast helical computed tomography in the prediction of urinary stone composition in vivo. J Int Med Res 2003;31:1-5.
10.
Patel SR, Haleblian G, Zabbo A, et al: Hounsfield units on computed tomography predict calcium stone subtype composition. Urol Int 2009;83:175-180.
11.
Nakada SY, Hoff DG, Attai S, et al: Determination of stone composition by noncontrast spiral computed tomography in the clinical setting. Urology 2000;55:816-819.
12.
Motley G, Dalrymple N, Keesling C, et al: Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition. Urology 2001;58:170-173.
13.
Sancak EB, Resorlu M, Celik O, et al: Accuracy of unenhanced computerized tomography interpretation by urologists in patients with acute flank pain. Urol Int 2015;94:210-214.
14.
Rahmouni A, Bargoin R, Herment A, et al: Color Doppler twinkling artifact in hyperechoic regions. Radiology 1996;199:269-271.
15.
Aytaç SK, Ozcan H: Effect of color Doppler system on the twinkling sign associated with urinary tract calculi. J Clin Ultrasound 1999;27:433-439.
16.
Lee JY, Kim SH, Cho JY, et al: Color and power Doppler twinkling artifacts from urinary stones: clinical observations and phantom studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:1441-1445.
17.
Chelfouh N, Grenier N, Higueret D, et al: Characterization of urinary calculi: in vitro study of ‘twinkling artifact' revealed by color-flow sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1055-1060.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.