Literature DB >> 11832704

Comparison of helical computerized tomography and plain radiography for estimating urinary stone size.

Narendra Narepalem1, Chandru P Sundaram, Illya C Boridy, Yan Yan, Jay P Heiken, Ralph V Clayman.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the accuracy of noncontrast spiral computerized tomography (CT) for determining urinary stone size compared with plain x-ray.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed noncontrast helical CT and plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder images of 39 patients with urolithiasis who underwent each study from July 1997 to February 1999. Stone size on x-ray was measured in the craniocaudal and transverse dimensions by a single radiologist (I.C.B.). The size of the same stone was then determined on blinded noncontrast spiral CT images. Stones that were less than 3 mm. were excluded from study. On CT estimated craniocaudal dimension was based on collimation thickness, the reconstruction interval and the number of images on which the stone was visualized.
RESULTS: We evaluated 58 stones 3 mm. or larger in the greatest dimension on plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder, and noncontrast spiral CT, including 15 in the distal ureter, 7 in the mid or proximal ureter and 36 in the kidneys. Stone size was 3 to 18 mm. in the greatest dimension. Mean transverse dimension of the stone plus or minus standard deviation on noncontrast spiral CT was 5.1 +/- 1.08 versus 4.9 +/- 1.08 mm. on plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder (paired t test; p = 0.335). The mean craniocaudal dimension on noncontrast spiral CT was 7.5 +/- 1.98 versus 6.7 +/- 1.98 mm. on plain x-ray paired t test (p = 0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: Noncontrast spiral CT enables a similar measurement of stone size along the transverse dimension as plain x-ray of the kidneys, ureters and bladder. In individuals noncontrast spiral CT does not accurately measure the craniocaudal dimension of stones compared with plain x-ray when standard acquisition and reconstruction techniques are used. In this regard it has a tendency to overestimate stone size by an average of 0.8 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11832704

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  15 in total

Review 1.  Evaluation and follow-up of patients with urinary lithiasis: minimizing radiation exposure.

Authors:  Elias S Hyams; Ojas Shah
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  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

3.  Consistency of Renal Stone Volume Measurements Across CT Scanner Model and Reconstruction Algorithm Configurations.

Authors:  Alice E Huang; Juan C Montoya; Maria Shiung; Shuai Leng; Cynthia H McCollough
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-04-12       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Coronal reconstruction of unenhanced abdominal CT for correct ureteral stone size classification.

Authors:  Nadav Berkovitz; Natalia Simanovsky; Ran Katz; Shaden Salama; Nurith Hiller
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Using Helical CT to Predict Stone Fragility in Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL).

Authors:  James C Williams; Chad A Zarse; Molly E Jackson; James E Lingeman; James A McAteer
Journal:  AIP Conf Proc       Date:  2007-04-05

6.  A novel method for prediction of stone composition: the average and difference of Hounsfield units and their cut-off values.

Authors:  Serdar Celik; Ertugrul Sefik; Ismail Basmacı; Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt; Mehmet Erhan Aydın; Tarık Yonguc; Tansu Degirmenci
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 2.370

7.  Making renal stones change size-impact of CT image post processing and reader variability.

Authors:  Mats Lidén; Torbjörn Andersson; Håkan Geijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Lifetime Radiation Exposure in Patients with Recurrent Nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Mohamed A Elkoushy; Sero Andonian
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09-12       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  Lithiasis size estimation variability depending on image technical methodology.

Authors:  Enrique Argüelles Salido; Jesús Aguilar García; Jose María Lozano-Blasco; Jorge Subirá Rios; Pastora Beardo Villar; Pedro Campoy-Martínez; Rafael A Medina-López
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2013-08-03       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  Utility and limitation of cumulative stone diameter in predicting urinary stone burden at flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience.

Authors:  Hiroki Ito; Takashi Kawahara; Hideyuki Terao; Takehiko Ogawa; Masahiro Yao; Yoshinobu Kubota; Junichi Matsuzaki
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.