New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Shattering Kidney Stones

An improved method of eliminating the agonizing pellets

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


When the kidney does not properly eliminate salts and minerals, those waste products can grow into the small, agonizing pellets known as kidney stones. Roughly one in 11 Americans develops them—a rate that has doubled over the past two decades as a result, in part, of our obesity epidemic. About the size of a grape seed, this stone passed through the ureter of its owner naturally. The false-colored scanning electron microscope image (magnified 50×) depicts the stone in grisly detail, with smooth calcium oxalate monohydrate crystals overgrown with jagged dehydrate crystals.

Not all kidney stones escape easily: some grow so large that they block urinary flow and require medical intervention. The most common way to get rid of them is shock wave lithotripsy, a noninvasive technique in which high-frequency shock waves directed at the stone generate enough pressure to shatter it into tiny, sandlike fragments. This spring a team of urologists, engineers and mathematicians at Duke University improved on the technique. The researchers cut a small groove in the lens that focuses the shock waves and found that the simple adjustment optimizes wave shape so that the procedure is more accurate and minimizes damage to surrounding body tissues. It is a relatively cheap, straightforward innovation that may soon help treat millions of kidney stone patients worldwide.

Annie Sneed is a science journalist who has written for the New York Times, Wired, Public Radio International and Fast Company.

More by Annie Sneed
Scientific American Magazine Vol 310 Issue 6This article was published with the title “What Is It?” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 310 No. 6 (), p. 19
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0614-19a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe