I just got a kidney stone October of last year and it was horrifying. I woke up and thought I was dreaming the pain and couldn't make it to the bathroom before I started screaming in pain. My landlords noticed and were kind enough to drive me to the hospital, but it was awful. I didn't get a ureteral stent in for one week (and a stent reduces the intensity of pain by allowing fluid to travel from the blocked kidney down to the bladder) and during that week I just had to get used to letting out my screams into a pillow when the stone shifted every few hours.
The research VGH is doing is very interesting, but my concern is that flora won't be a direct treatment. They mention that they believe obesity correlates with kidney stones - and it also correlates with gut flora. So now we have three conditions tied to gut flora, which is further tied to diet. I wonder if they'll find that certain gut flora are decreased by diets that also correlate with kidney stones, rather than finding a particular flora that will treat kidney stones (if that makes sense).
Do you know what type of stone yours was? My friend has stones that are extremely high in uric acid and look like jagged, sharp, and pointy rocks. Painfully so. (We both worked together in the medical field ... so microscope!) The doctor's had her change her diet to avoid foods with uric acid and other things, and at first it seemed to be working, but then, either she went off the diet (she denies) or it really wasn't working in the first place. Also she's skinny, so obesity isn't a factor. Last year she had one start just before my daughter's birthday party (bless her heart she still came but couldn't hardly move), and it's coming up on that time of year again - so I'm waiting for the text that says another has come.
But I wonder if the research is only targeting more calcium based stones or uric acid based stones, or the other types.
I have no idea what kind my stone was. I think my surgeon was ready to be rid of me due to the scheduling error on his part being a little embarrassing. None of the doctors recommended any changes or gave me a suspected cause for my stone, so I wonder if that's because it was one type of stone or another. My suspicion is that my stone was brought about by some very rapid weight loss on my part along with poor hydration.
The research page that mentions the study doesn't say whether they're looking at specific types of stones or just all stones in general.
Edit: I recalled that my kidney stone was never visible on fluoroscope/x-ray and so it was most likely a uric acid stone.
IIRC, about 80% of stones are calcium based. I would bet that's where they are targeting research. They gave me a pretty restrictive diet, and it has slowed down the formation of stones. Used to pass about one a month, now it's one every 3-4 months. With no dairy, no calcium intake whatsoever, no vitamin D, I see osteoporosis in my future.
I just got a kidney stone October of last year and it was horrifying. I woke up and thought I was dreaming the pain and couldn't make it to the bathroom before I started screaming in pain. My landlords noticed and were kind enough to drive me to the hospital, but it was awful. I didn't get a ureteral stent in for one week (and a stent reduces the intensity of pain by allowing fluid to travel from the blocked kidney down to the bladder) and during that week I just had to get used to letting out my screams into a pillow when the stone shifted every few hours.
The research VGH is doing is very interesting, but my concern is that flora won't be a direct treatment. They mention that they believe obesity correlates with kidney stones - and it also correlates with gut flora. So now we have three conditions tied to gut flora, which is further tied to diet. I wonder if they'll find that certain gut flora are decreased by diets that also correlate with kidney stones, rather than finding a particular flora that will treat kidney stones (if that makes sense).
Do you know what type of stone yours was? My friend has stones that are extremely high in uric acid and look like jagged, sharp, and pointy rocks. Painfully so. (We both worked together in the medical field ... so microscope!) The doctor's had her change her diet to avoid foods with uric acid and other things, and at first it seemed to be working, but then, either she went off the diet (she denies) or it really wasn't working in the first place. Also she's skinny, so obesity isn't a factor. Last year she had one start just before my daughter's birthday party (bless her heart she still came but couldn't hardly move), and it's coming up on that time of year again - so I'm waiting for the text that says another has come.
But I wonder if the research is only targeting more calcium based stones or uric acid based stones, or the other types.
I have no idea what kind my stone was. I think my surgeon was ready to be rid of me due to the scheduling error on his part being a little embarrassing. None of the doctors recommended any changes or gave me a suspected cause for my stone, so I wonder if that's because it was one type of stone or another. My suspicion is that my stone was brought about by some very rapid weight loss on my part along with poor hydration.
The research page that mentions the study doesn't say whether they're looking at specific types of stones or just all stones in general.
Edit: I recalled that my kidney stone was never visible on fluoroscope/x-ray and so it was most likely a uric acid stone.
IIRC, about 80% of stones are calcium based. I would bet that's where they are targeting research. They gave me a pretty restrictive diet, and it has slowed down the formation of stones. Used to pass about one a month, now it's one every 3-4 months. With no dairy, no calcium intake whatsoever, no vitamin D, I see osteoporosis in my future.