OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether unenhanced helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis, supplemented as necessary with delayed enhanced CT of the pelvis, is sufficient for urologists to treat patients with acute renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans from 99 patients were analyzed retrospectively for the presence, size, and location of ureteral calculi and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction. Clinical follow-up was analyzed by reviewing charts, directly communicating with patients, and reviewing surgical reports. Clinical information was correlated with CT findings. RESULTS: The findings of 51 CT scans were positive for calculi, and the findings of 48 were negative for calculi. The findings from two CT scans were false-positive, and none of the findings were false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of helical CT were 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. A significant difference in stone size was found between patients who were treated conservatively (3.3 +/- 1.3 mm) and patients who underwent a urologic procedure (7 +/- 6.2 mm) (p < .01) and between patients in whom successful ureteral stent placement was the sole intervention (3.9 +/- 2.8 mm) and patients in whom initial stent placement failed and who then underwent a second urologic procedure (7.4 +/- 3 mm) (p < .05). We found no statistically significant difference between the conservatively and interventionally treated groups with respect to stone location. The presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Stone size alone was found to correlate with patient treatment. Stone location and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction did not affect patient treatment. Because the degree of obstruction and relative renal function are not relevant to the initial treatment of patients with ureteral stone obstruction, CT is adequate for both diagnosis and treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether unenhanced helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis, supplemented as necessary with delayed enhanced CT of the pelvis, is sufficient for urologists to treat patients with acute renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT scans from 99 patients were analyzed retrospectively for the presence, size, and location of ureteral calculi and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction. Clinical follow-up was analyzed by reviewing charts, directly communicating with patients, and reviewing surgical reports. Clinical information was correlated with CT findings. RESULTS: The findings of 51 CT scans were positive for calculi, and the findings of 48 were negative for calculi. The findings from two CT scans were false-positive, and none of the findings were false-negative. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of helical CT were 100%, 96%, and 98%, respectively. A significant difference in stone size was found between patients who were treated conservatively (3.3 +/- 1.3 mm) and patients who underwent a urologic procedure (7 +/- 6.2 mm) (p < .01) and between patients in whom successful ureteral stent placement was the sole intervention (3.9 +/- 2.8 mm) and patients in whom initial stent placement failed and who then underwent a second urologic procedure (7.4 +/- 3 mm) (p < .05). We found no statistically significant difference between the conservatively and interventionally treated groups with respect to stone location. The presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Stone size alone was found to correlate with patient treatment. Stone location and the presence and severity of secondary signs of obstruction did not affect patient treatment. Because the degree of obstruction and relative renal function are not relevant to the initial treatment of patients with ureteral stone obstruction, CT is adequate for both diagnosis and treatment.
Authors: Jong Wook Kim; Ji Yun Chae; Jin Wook Kim; Mi Mi Oh; Hong Seok Park; Du Geon Moon; Cheol Yong Yoon Journal: Urolithiasis Date: 2013-10-27 Impact factor: 3.436
Authors: Peter Alexander Massaro; Avinash Kanji; Paul Atkinson; Ryan Pawsey; Tom Whelan Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.862