ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Immunol.
Sec. Alloimmunity and Transplantation
Analysis of 33,616 Urinary Stone Cases: Novel Findings on Renal Transplantation Impact, Comorbidity Profiles, and Composition Patterns
Lian Peng 1
Zhenglin Chang 2
Jialin Liu 2
Jierong Chen 2
Feiyang Tan 2
Ying Liang 2
Qianjun Li 2
Ming Zhao 1
1. Yuebei People's Hospital Affiliated to Shantou University School of Medicine, Shaoguan, China
2. The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Urinary stone composition in renal transplant recipients remains poorly characterized, despite their distinct metabolic and urological profiles. Understanding stone composition patterns in this population is crucial for targeted management and recurrence prevention strategies. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed 33,616 urinary stone samples from two hospitals in Southern China (April 2014-December 2024). We compared stone composition between 69 renal transplant recipients with nephrolithiasis and 33,547 non-transplant stone-forming controls using Fourier Transform-Infrared Spectrometry. Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed to balance baseline characteristics. Logistic regression with progressive adjustment and comprehensive subgroup analyses were conducted to assess associations between transplantation and stone composition. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, transplant recipients with nephrolithiasis demonstrated markedly different stone composition patterns compared to controls. Before matching, carbonate apatite stones were substantially more prevalent among stone formers in the transplant group (37.7% vs. 16.4%, p<0.001), while calcium oxalate monohydrate stones were less common (39.1% vs. 63.7%). After matching with 139 controls, these differences persisted and intensified (carbonate apatite: 37.7% vs. 15.8%; calcium oxalate monohydrate: 39.1% vs. 66.9%, p=0.001). Renal transplantation with nephrolithiasis was associated with significantly lower proportion of calcium oxalate stones compared to non-transplant stone formers (OR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.17-0.57, p<0.001) and significantly higher odds of carbonate apatite stones (OR 3.22, 95% CI: 1.66-6.32, p<0.001).These associations remained robust across sensitivity analyses with progressive adjustment for confounders (adjusted OR for carbonate apatite: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.37-5.82) and multiple subgroups stratified by age, sex, and comorbidities. Additional factors associated with carbonate apatite included renal atrophy (OR 4.37, 95% CI: 1.49-13.17, p=0.007) and urinary tract stricture (OR 2.50, 95% CI: 1.06-5.75, p=0.032). Transplant recipients with nephrolithiasis also exhibited higher proportions of mixed stone composition (58.0% vs. 39.6%, p=0.018) and urological complications. CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplantation fundamentally alters urinary stone pathogenesis in patients who develop stones, with distinct compositional shifts toward carbonate apatite and away from calcium oxalate stones. These findings suggest the need for transplant-specific stone prevention protocols.
Summary
Keywords
Calcium Oxalate, Carbonate apatite, Propensity score matching, Renal transplantation, stone disease, Urinary stone composition
Received
30 November 2025
Accepted
18 February 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Peng, Chang, Liu, Chen, Tan, Liang, Li and Zhao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ying Liang; Qianjun Li; Ming Zhao
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.