Alkaline Water: Help or Hype for Uric Acid and Cystine Urolithiasis?

PURPOSE: The consumption of alkaline water, water with an average pH of 8 to 10, has been steadily increasing globally as proponents claim it to be a healthier alternative to regular water. Urinary alkalinization therapy is frequently prescribed in patients with uric acid and cystine urolithiasis, and as such we analyzed commercially available alkaline waters to assess their potential to increase urinary pH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five commercially available alkaline water brands (Essentia, Smart Water Alkaline, Great Value Hydrate Alkaline Water, Body Armor SportWater, and Perfect Hydration) underwent anion chromatography and direct chemical measurements to determine the mineral contents of each product. The alkaline content of each bottle of water was then compared to that of potassium citrate (the gold standard for urinary alkalinization) as well as to other beverages and supplements used to augment urinary citrate and/or the urine pH. RESULTS: The pH levels of the bottled alkaline water ranged from 9.69 to 10.15. Electrolyte content was minimal, and the physiologic alkali content was below 1 mEq/L for all brands of alkaline water. The alkali content of alkaline water is minimal when compared to common stone treatment alternatives such as potassium citrate. In addition, several organic beverages, synthetic beverages, and other supplements contain more alkali content than alkaline water, and can achieve the AUA and European Association of Urology alkali recommendation of 30 to 60 mEq per day with ≤ 3 servings/d. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available alkaline water has negligible alkali content and thus provides no added benefit over tap water for patients with uric acid and cystine urolithiasis.

Electromotive Drug Administration in the Porcine Renal Pelvis: First Report.

Introduction: Electromotive Drug Administration (EMDA) amplifies drug delivery deep into targeted tissues. We tested, for the first time, the ability of EMDA to deliver methylene blue into the urothelium of the renal pelvis. Materials and Methods: In an anesthetized female pig, both proximal ureters were transected two inches distal to the ureteropelvic junction. An 8F dual lumen catheter and a 5F fenestrated catheter with an indwelling silver wire were inserted into both renal pelvises following which methylene blue (0.1%) was infused at a rate of 5 mL/min for 20 minutes. In one pelvis, a 4 mA positive pulsed electrical current was applied to the silver wire. Results: In contrast to the control pelvis, the EMDA side macroscopically exhibited dense homogeneous staining; microscopy revealed penetration of methylene blue into the urothelium/lamina propria. Conclusion: In the porcine renal pelvis, application of EMDA increased the penetration of a charged molecule into the urothelium/lamina propria.

Surgical Force: Initial Study and Clinical Implications in the Assessment of Ureteral Access Sheath Induced Injury.

Purpose: Ureteral access sheaths (UAS) pose the risk of severe ureteral injury. Our prior studies revealed forces ≤6 Newtons (N) prevent ureteral injury. Accordingly, we sought to define the force urologists and residents in training typically use when placing a UAS. Materials and Methods: Among urologists and urology residents attending two annual urological conferences in 2022, 121 individuals were recruited for the study. Participants inserted 12F, 14F, and 16F UAS into a male genitourinary model containing a concealed force sensor; they also provided demographic information. Analysis was completed using t-tests and Chi-square tests to identify group differences when passing a 16F sheath UAS. Participant traits associated with surpassing or remaining below a minimal force threshold were also explored through polychotomous logistic regression. Results: Participant force distributions were as follows: ≤4N (29%), >6N (45%), and >8N (32%). More years of practice were significantly associated with exerting >6N relative to forces between 4N and 6N; results for >8N relative to 4N and 8N were similar. Compared to high-volume ureteroscopists (those performing >20 ureteroscopies/month), physicians performing ≤20 ureteroscopies/month were significantly less likely to exert forces ≤4N (p = 0.017 and p = 0.041). Of those surpassing 6N and 8N, 15% and 18%, respectively, were high-volume ureteroscopists. Conclusions: Despite years of practice or volume of monthly ureteroscopic cases performed, most urologists failed to pass 16F access sheaths within the ideal range of 4N to 6N (74% of participants) or within a predefined safe range of 4N to 8N (61% of participants).