Literature DB >> 15311009

Coronal imaging to assess urinary tract stone size.

Robert B Nadler1, Jeffrey A Stern, Simon Kimm, Frederick Hoff, Alfred W Rademaker.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Urinary tract stones are typically measured using axial images from computerized tomography (CT). Such images provide a precise measurement of stone length and width. However, cephalocaudad dimensions can be difficult to determine from axial images. Coronal reconstructions, which can more accurately measure cephalocaudad dimensions, are seldom used to measure stones. We determined if coronal reconstructions could aid in more precisely determining stone size.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT in patients who had undergone CT to evaluate urolithiasis at our institution during the 9-month period of January 2001 to September 2001 were reviewed. Length and width were measured using axial images, and cephalocaudad length and width were measured using coronal reconstructions. Cephalocaudad length was also estimated from axial images. Total area was calculated from axial and coronal reconstructions. The paired t test was used to assess statistical significance.
RESULTS: The CT images of 102 patients with a total of 151 stones had undergone coronal reconstructions and, thus, were included in the study. Mean area in the axial and coronal reconstruction groups was 22.23 and 31.29 mm, respectively. Mean greatest axial dimension (length or width) was 4.87 mm and mean greatest coronal dimension (cephalocaudad length) was 6.51 mm. Cephalocaudad length estimated from axial images was 8.8 mm. Differences for all 3 of these comparisons (axial vs coronal area, greatest axial vs coronal dimension and estimated vs actual cephalocaudad length) proved to be statistically significant (p <0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: While urinary tract stones have typically been measured using axial images, coronal images provide a different impression of stone size. These data demonstrate that examining only axial images provides an inaccurate measure of stone size. We suggest that coronal images should also be used to measure more accurately stone size, which is critical for clinical decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15311009     DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000134885.08558.88

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


  14 in total

1.  Urinary stone size estimation: a new segmentation algorithm-based CT method.

Authors:  Mats Lidén; Torbjörn Andersson; Mathias Broxvall; Per Thunberg; Håkan Geijer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 2.  Multi-detector computed tomography of acute abdomen.

Authors:  Sebastian Leschka; Hatem Alkadhi; Simon Wildermuth; Borut Marincek
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2005-08-27       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  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

4.  In-vitro comparison of different slice thicknesses and kernel settings for measurement of urinary stone size by computed tomography.

Authors:  Roland Umbach; Jochen-Klaus Müller; Gunnar Wendt-Nordahl; Thomas Knoll; Jan Peter Jessen
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Use of a Dedicated Server to Perform Coronal and Sagittal Reformations in Trauma Examinations.

Authors:  Jason N Itri; William W Boonn
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2010-04-15       Impact factor: 4.056

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Unenhanced MDCT in suspected urolithiasis: improved stone detection and density measurements using coronal maximum-intensity-projection images.

Authors:  Michael T Corwin; Margaret Hsu; John P McGahan; Machelle Wilson; Ramit Lamba
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.959

9.  Factors affecting the urologist's decision to administer ureteral stone therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Mun Ki Min; Ji Ho Ryu; Yong In Kim; Maeng Real Park; Seok Ran Yeom; Sang Kyoon Han; Seong Wook Park
Journal:  Clin Exp Emerg Med       Date:  2017-12-30

10.  Comparison of ureteric stone size, on bone window versus standard soft-tissue window settings, on multi-detector non-contrast computed tomography.

Authors:  Hussam Uddin Soomro; M Hammad Ather; Basit Salam
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2016-07-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.