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.

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).

Evaluation of Renal Function and Stent Durability Following Resonance Stent Placement for Benign Disease.

Introduction: The metal-based Resonance stent (RS) has traditionally been placed in patients with malignant ureteral obstruction; as such, the long-term utility of RS among patients with benign ureteral obstruction (BUO) remains underinvestigated. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our database for patients with BUO who underwent RS placement between 2010 and 2020. The impact of chronic RS placement on renal function was evaluated by estimated serum creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), furosemide renal scan, and CT-based renal parenchymal volume measurement. The number of and reason for RS stent exchanges during the follow-up period, incidence of encrustation, and the average indwell time were recorded. A cost analysis of placing the RS vs a polymeric stent was performed. Results: Among 43 RS patients with BUO, at a mean follow-up of 26 months, there was no change in eGFR (p = 0.99), parenchymal volume (p = 0.44), or split renal function of the stent-bearing side on renal scan (p = 0.48). The mean RS indwell time was 9.7 months. Eleven patients (26%) underwent premature stent replacement (6 cases) or removal (5 cases). Stents in 9 patients (32%) were encrusted, of which 4 (44%) required laser lithotripsy. Overall, 25 patients (58%) and 12 patients (28%) had a mean stent indwell time of ≥6 months and ≥12 months, respectively. Placing an RS resulted in a 52%, 37%, and 5.6% cost reduction compared with a regular polymeric stent placement, where it was exchanged every 6, 4, or 3 months, respectively. Conclusions: RS deployment in the patient with a BUO results in cost-effective maintenance of renal function and of renal parenchymal volume at a mean follow-up of 2 years; however, only 28% of patients fulfilled the 1-year criterion for RS indwell time.

Local and Intra-articular Administration of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs for Pain Management in Orthopedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although growing evidence demonstrates the benefits of locally administered nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for postoperative pain management, there is ongoing debate regarding NSAID use in orthopedic surgery. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: Current data largely support a local site of NSAID action and suggest that effective pain control can be achieved with delivery of NSAIDs intra-articularly (IA) and/or locally at the site of injury, where they can block peripheral production of inflammatory mediators and may desensitize nociceptors. Improvements in postoperative pain control with locally administered NSAIDs have been widely reported in the total joint arthroplasty literature and may offer benefits in patient's undergoing arthroscopic procedures and those with osteoarthritis as well. The purpose of this review is to examine the available evidence in the literature regarding the efficacy and safety profile of the use of local and IA NSAIDs in orthopedic surgery. DATA SOURCES: Narrative literature review using keywords, expert opinion, either during or from live conference. THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: Local and IA administration of NSAIDs for pain management in orthopedic surgery. CONCLUSION: There is convincing evidence that NSAIDs administered locally in and around the joint reduce postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty, yet further research is required regarding the risks of potential chondrotoxicity and the inhibition of bone and soft-tissue healing with locally administered NSAIDs.