Literature DB >> 11489691

Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition.

G Motley1, N Dalrymple, C Keesling, J Fischer, W Harmon.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Noncontrast computed tomography (NCCT) has emerged as the diagnostic study of choice in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Recent in vitro studies have suggested that NCCT can be used to predict the composition of urinary stones on the basis of differences in radiodensity (measured in Hounsfield units, HUs). We sought to determine whether the analysis of in vivo urinary stones seen on NCCT could predict their composition.
METHODS: Between March 1997 and August 1999, 100 pure stones from patients seen at the Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas were submitted for analysis. All had been visualized by NCCT before stone passage or retrieval. A General Electric High-Speed Advantage CT scanner evaluated most of these patients by a "flank pain protocol" (ie, helical technique with breath-holding at 120 kV, 200 mA with 5 mm collimation). Each scan was interpreted by one of two staff radiologists who measured the HUs for each stone. A statistical comparison was made between the stone composition and radiodensity. To allow for subsequently observed increases in radiodensity with increasing stone size regardless of composition, the HU value was divided by each stone's largest transverse diameter in millimeters to give the HU density. A statistical comparison was then made between stone composition and HU density.
RESULTS: No significant difference was noted between the HU values of calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate stones, and thus they were analyzed collectively as "calcium stones." When the HU values of calcium (n = 87), uric acid (n = 7), struvite (n = 4), and cystine (n = 2) stones were compared, the overlap of ranges precluded accurate identification, and the mean HU values were not significantly different from one another. There was less overlap noted when comparing the HU densities of the stones studied, and no noncalcium stone had an HU density greater than 76 HU/mm. Using one-way analysis of variance, significant differences were noted between the mean HU density of calcium (105 +/- 43) and uric acid (50 +/- 24) stones (P = 0.006). A trend toward significance was found between the mean HU density of the calcium and struvite stones (53 +/- 28, P = 0.073). No significant differences were found among the other stones.
CONCLUSIONS: HU density compared with the HU value alone better characterized differences in radiodensities among urinary stones; calcium stones can be distinguished from uric acid stones on the basis of this value. However, neither the HU density nor the mean HU value was able to identify urinary stones in vivo.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11489691     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(01)01115-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  54 in total

1.  Predicting the mineral composition of ureteral stone using non-contrast computed tomography.

Authors:  Takashi Kawahara; Hiroshi Miyamoto; Hiroki Ito; Hideyuki Terao; Manabu Kakizoe; Yoshitake Kato; Hitoshi Ishiguro; Hiroji Uemura; Masahiro Yao; Junichi Matsuzaki
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-10-01       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Renal stones composition in vivo determination: comparison between 100/Sn140 kV dual-energy CT and 120 kV single-energy CT.

Authors:  Matteo Bonatti; Fabio Lombardo; Giulia A Zamboni; Patrizia Pernter; Armin Pycha; Roberto Pozzi Mucelli; Giampietro Bonatti
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  [Urinary calculi. Metabolism and diagnosis].

Authors:  R E Hautmann; M Straub
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Toward a new insight of calcium oxalate stones in Drosophila by micro-computerized tomography.

Authors:  Wen-Chi Chen; Huey-Yi Chen; Po-Chi Liao; Shih-Jing Wang; Ming-Yen Tsai; Yung-Hsiang Chen; Wei-Yong Lin
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Single session vs two sessions of flexible ureterosopy (FURS) for dusting of renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm in diameter: Does stone size or hardness play a role in number of sessions to be applied?"

Authors:  Ahmed Mamdouh Abd El Hamed; Hazem Elmoghazy; Mohamed Aldahshoury; Ahmed Riad; Mohammed Mostafa; Fawzy Farag; Wael Gamal
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) to differentiate uric acid from non-uric acid calculi: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Trevor A McGrath; Robert A Frank; Nicola Schieda; Brian Blew; Jean-Paul Salameh; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Matthew D F McInnes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-01-24       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  [Diagnostic imaging--the end of intravenous urography?].

Authors:  W L Strohmaier; R Bartunek
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 0.639

8.  Can the Hounsfield unit predict the success of medically expulsive therapy?

Authors:  Sakip Erturhan; Omer Bayrak; Ahmet Mete; Ilker Seckiner; Gokhan Urgun; Kemal Sarica
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.862

9.  Three-dimensional CT pyelography for planning of percutaneous nephrostolithotomy: accuracy of stone measurement, stone depiction and pelvicalyceal reconstruction.

Authors:  Uday Patel; Richard Miles Walkden; Khurshid R Ghani; Ken Anson
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  How should patients with cystine stone disease be evaluated and treated in the twenty-first century?

Authors:  Kim Hovgaard Andreassen; Katja Venborg Pedersen; Susanne Sloth Osther; Helene Ulrik Jung; Søren Kissow Lildal; Palle Joern Sloth Osther
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-11-27       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.