Literature DB >> 19230922

Computerized tomography magnified bone windows are superior to standard soft tissue windows for accurate measurement of stone size: an in vitro and clinical study.

Brian H Eisner1, Avinash Kambadakone, Manoj Monga, James K Anderson, Andrew A Thoreson, Hang Lee, Stephen P Dretler, Dushyant V Sahani.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We determined the most accurate method of measuring urinary stones on computerized tomography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the in vitro portion of the study 24 calculi, including 12 calcium oxalate monohydrate and 12 uric acid stones, that had been previously collected at our clinic were measured manually with hand calipers as the gold standard measurement. The calculi were then embedded into human kidney-sized potatoes and scanned using 64-slice multidetector computerized tomography. Computerized tomography measurements were performed at 4 window settings, including standard soft tissue windows (window width-320 and window length-50), standard bone windows (window width-1120 and window length-300), 5.13x magnified soft tissue windows and 5.13x magnified bone windows. Maximum stone dimensions were recorded. For the in vivo portion of the study 41 patients with distal ureteral stones who underwent noncontrast computerized tomography and subsequently spontaneously passed the stones were analyzed. All analyzed stones were 100% calcium oxalate monohydrate or mixed, calcium based stones. Stones were prospectively collected at the clinic and the largest diameter was measured with digital calipers as the gold standard. This was compared to computerized tomography measurements using 4.0x magnified soft tissue windows and 4.0x magnified bone windows. Statistical comparisons were performed using Pearson's correlation and paired t test.
RESULTS: In the in vitro portion of the study the most accurate measurements were obtained using 5.13x magnified bone windows with a mean 0.13 mm difference from caliper measurement (p = 0.6). Measurements performed in the soft tissue window with and without magnification, and in the bone window without magnification were significantly different from hand caliper measurements (mean difference 1.2, 1.9 and 1.4 mm, p = 0.003, <0.001 and 0.0002, respectively). When comparing measurement errors between stones of different composition in vitro, the error for calcium oxalate calculi was significantly different from the gold standard for all methods except bone window settings with magnification. For uric acid calculi the measurement error was observed only in standard soft tissue window settings. In vivo 4.0x magnified bone windows was superior to 4.0x magnified soft tissue windows in measurement accuracy. Magnified bone window measurements were not statistically different from digital caliper measurements (mean underestimation vs digital caliper 0.3 mm, p = 0.4), while magnified soft tissue windows were statistically distinct (mean underestimation 1.4 mm, p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In this study magnified bone windows were the most accurate method of stone measurements in vitro and in vivo. Therefore, we recommend the routine use of magnified bone windows for computerized tomography measurement of stones. In vitro the measurement error in calcium oxalate stones was greater than that in uric acid stones, suggesting that stone composition may be responsible for measurement inaccuracies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19230922     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.116

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


  22 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.  Uncovering the real outcomes of active renal stone treatment by utilizing non-contrast computer tomography: a systematic review of the current literature.

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Martin Habicher; Daniel Junker; Thomas Herrmann; Jan Peter Jessen; Thomas Knoll; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-10-13       Impact factor: 4.226

3.  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

4.  Tools to improve the accuracy of kidney stone sizing with ultrasound.

Authors:  Barbrina Dunmire; Franklin C Lee; Ryan S Hsi; Bryan W Cunitz; Marla Paun; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen; Jonathan D Harper
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  Stone free rates (SFRs) after retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL); are we comparing apples with watermelons?

Authors:  Theodoros Tokas; Udo Nagele
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Kidney stones and imaging: what can your radiologist do for you?

Authors:  Raphaële Renard-Penna; Aurélie Martin; Pierre Conort; Pierre Mozer; Philippe Grenier
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 4.226

7.  The transgluteal approach to shockwave lithotripsy to treat distal ureter stones: a prospective, randomized, and multicenter study.

Authors:  Min Soo Choo; Jun Hyun Han; Jong Keun Kim; Tae Young Shin; Won Ki Lee; Sang Kon Lee; Seong Ho Lee
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  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

9.  Stone volume is best predictor of operative time required in retrograde intrarenal surgery for renal calculi: implications for surgical planning and quality improvement.

Authors:  Igor Sorokin; Diana K Cardona-Grau; Alexandra Rehfuss; Alan Birney; Costas Stavrakis; Gabriel Leinwand; Allen Herr; Paul J Feustel; Mark D White
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-03-29       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.