2299 INCREASING DOSES OF VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTATION ARE ASSOCIATED WITH DECREASED RISK OF NEPHROLITHIASIS IN POST GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Basic Research II1 Apr 20122299 INCREASING DOSES OF VITAMIN D SUPPLEMENTATION ARE ASSOCIATED WITH DECREASED RISK OF NEPHROLITHIASIS IN POST GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY Patrick Scheffler, Mark Dunn, Nicolas V. Christou, Ross E. Andersen, and Sero Andonian Patrick SchefflerPatrick Scheffler Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Mark DunnMark Dunn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Nicolas V. ChristouNicolas V. Christou Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , Ross E. AndersenRoss E. Andersen Montreal, Canada More articles by this author , and Sero AndonianSero Andonian Montreal, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2479AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Recent studies have indicated a potential increased risk of nephrolithiasis post gastric bypass surgery. This study aimed to examine the incidence of nephrolithiasis post gastric bypass surgery (RYGB) in relation to vitamin D supplementation. METHODS A telephone questionnaire assessing current health status, history of nephrolithiasis (pre and post RYGB) and their risk factors [(age, sex, BMI diabetes mellitus (DM), coronary artery disease (CAD), hypertension (HTN), and history of renal disease (RD)] was administered to 200 consecutive patients who had RYGB 5 to 15 years earlier. Specific dosages of calcium and vitamin D supplementation were assessed. For statistical analysis, patients were collapsed into two groups based on clinical outcome (post-RYGB stone-formers and non-formers). RESULTS The mean follow-up was 10.1 years, the overall incidence of nephrolithiasis was 10.5%. Pre-RYGB, 8% of patients reported nephrolithiasis whereas post-RYGB, 12.5% reported nephrolithiasis, of which 90.5% constituted de novo post-RYGB stone formers. Post-RYGGB stone formers reported significantly higher history of renal insufficiency when compared with non-formers (23.8% vs 2.2 %; p<0.001). There were no significant differences between non-formers and stone formers in mean calcium (200mg vs 200 mg, p>0.05) or vitamin D (400 IU vs 600IU; p>0.05) supplementation. However, when risk factors for nephrolithiasis (age > 40, BMI > 30, male sex, CAD, DM, HTN, RD) were analyzed with the different vitamin D doses in a logistic regression model, increasing doses of vitamin D supplementation was found to be associated with decreasing OR of developing post-RYGB nephrolithiasis. For patients without vitamin D supplementation, these nephrolithiasis risk factors predicted post-RYGB stone formation with an OR of 2.29 (p<0.05). This effect was dose dependent, and supplementation of vitamin D at a dose of 1000IU abolished the lithogenic effect. No such effects were found for calcium. CONCLUSIONS Incidence of nephrolithiasis is high post-RYGB at a rate of 12.5%. This risk is mitigated in a dose-dependent manner by vitamin D supplementation, and is optimized at 1000IU. Prospective trials are needed to explore the role that vitamin D may play in reducing nephrolithiasis. © 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 187Issue 4SApril 2012Page: e927-e928 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2012 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Patrick Scheffler Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Mark Dunn Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Nicolas V. Christou Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Ross E. Andersen Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Sero Andonian Montreal, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».