OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in stone measurement using computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US). Axial unenhanced helical CT is the reference-standard imaging modality for the assessment of urinary tract calculi; however, US is also commonly used. Differences in stone measurement using these techniques are poorly described and contributors to measurement error remain unknown. METHODS: All patients at our institution undergoing both abdominal CT and renal US less than 1 month apart since June 2004 were reviewed. Solitary renal calculi were identified on both CT and US in all cases. RESULTS: We identified 71 calculi in 60 patients. Compared with CT, US overestimated stone size, an effect that was more pronounced with smaller calculi. The mean stone measurement on CT was 7.4 +/- 4.4 mm and on US it was 9.2 +/- 4.5 mm (P = .018). For stones </=5 mm, US measurements were a mean of 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm greater than CT (P <.001). US and CT measurements were discordant for 60% of stones </=5 mm. Discordance was associated with US measurement of skin-to-stone distance (P = .018), but not body mass index (P = .189) or location within the urinary tract (P = .161). Review of the literature revealed that US has a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 45% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of ureteric calculi and 45% and 88%, respectively, for renal calculi. CONCLUSIONS: US overestimates stone size in urolithiasis, a finding that may have implications for stone management. Discordance in stone measurement varies with size and is greatest in stones </=5 mm. US measurement of skin-stone-distance is an important determinant of error in US measurement of renal calculi. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in stone measurement using computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US). Axial unenhanced helical CT is the reference-standard imaging modality for the assessment of urinary tract calculi; however, US is also commonly used. Differences in stone measurement using these techniques are poorly described and contributors to measurement error remain unknown. METHODS: All patients at our institution undergoing both abdominal CT and renal US less than 1 month apart since June 2004 were reviewed. Solitary renal calculi were identified on both CT and US in all cases. RESULTS: We identified 71 calculi in 60 patients. Compared with CT, US overestimated stone size, an effect that was more pronounced with smaller calculi. The mean stone measurement on CT was 7.4 +/- 4.4 mm and on US it was 9.2 +/- 4.5 mm (P = .018). For stones </=5 mm, US measurements were a mean of 1.9 +/- 1.2 mm greater than CT (P <.001). US and CT measurements were discordant for 60% of stones </=5 mm. Discordance was associated with US measurement of skin-to-stone distance (P = .018), but not body mass index (P = .189) or location within the urinary tract (P = .161). Review of the literature revealed that US has a pooled sensitivity and specificity of 45% and 94%, respectively, for the detection of ureteric calculi and 45% and 88%, respectively, for renal calculi. CONCLUSIONS: US overestimates stone size in urolithiasis, a finding that may have implications for stone management. Discordance in stone measurement varies with size and is greatest in stones </=5 mm. US measurement of skin-stone-distance is an important determinant of error in US measurement of renal calculi. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Michael Ordon; Sero Andonian; Brian Blew; Trevor Schuler; Ben Chew; Kenneth T Pace Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Philip C May; Yasser Haider; Barbrina Dunmire; Bryan W Cunitz; Jeff Thiel; Ziyue Liu; Matthew Bruce; Michael R Bailey; Mathew D Sorensen; Jonathan D Harper Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Julianna C Simon; James R Holm; Jeffrey Thiel; Barbrina Dunmire; Bryan W Cunitz; Michael R Bailey Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Mathew D Sorensen; Jonathan D Harper; Ryan S Hsi; Anup R Shah; Manjiri K Dighe; Stephen J Carter; Mariam Moshiri; Marla Paun; Wei Lu; Michael R Bailey Journal: J Endourol Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 2.942