Literature DB >> 21850409

Can the CT planning image determine whether a kidney stone is radiopaque on a plain KUB?

Ole Graumann1, Susanne S Osther, Diana Spasojevic, Palle J S Osther.   

Abstract

Almost all kidney stones are CT positive. Before a CT scan can be done a CT planning image (CTI) is generated in order to select the exact scanning area. The CTI looks approximately like a normal kidney-ureter-bladder abdominal radiography (KUB) but with reduced quality. It has been used as a guide, assuming that if the kidney stone could be seen on the CTI the kidney stone also would be visible on a conventional plain KUB (radiopaque). From the perspective of diagnosis and treatment as well as follow-up it is of importance to know whether a kidney stone is radiopaque or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the CTI actually can predict radiopacity. CT scans and corresponding KUB's were analysed in 76 consecutive kidney stone patients. The CT scan and the KUB were performed on the same day. All patients were examined with the same CT scanner (64 slice GE light speed VCT). Three radiologists evaluated the images in plenum. The following was recorded regarding the kidney stones: X-ray positive (radiopaque on KUB), CTI positive (radiopaque on CTI), location (a kidney, b upper two-thirds of ureter and c lower one-thirds of ureter including the bladder), size and Hounsfield units (HU). We also measured the patient's 'anterior-posterior depth' (APD) at the kidney stone level in axial plane, and whether the stone was homogeneous/inhomogeneous. 54 of the 76 patients (71%) had radiopaque stones on KUB. 43 (57%) of these also could be seen on the CTI, resulting in a positive predicting value (PPV) of 100% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 67%. In the 54 KUB positive kidney stones the mean kidney stone diameter was 7 mm (2-30 mm), mean HU's 1,007 (294-1,782 HU), location: a:32, b:9 and c:13 patients. APD was mean 23.6 cm (13-39 cm). In the KUB positive and CTI negative kidney stones (11 patients) mean kidney stone diameter was 4 mm (2-9 mm), mean HU's 742 (294-1,253 HU), location: a:32, b:9 and c:13 patients. APD in this group was mean 26.1 cm (13-37 cm). If the kidney stone can be seen on the CTI it is also visible on a plain KUB (PPV 100%). The CTI do, however, underestimate the radiopacity of a stone on a plain KUB (NPV 67%). Kidney stone HU > 742, stone location in the kidney and proximal ureter and APD < 26 cm independently predict agreement between CTI and KUB with regard to radiopacity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21850409     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-011-0411-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Res        ISSN: 0300-5623


  12 in total

1.  Sensitivity and value of digital CT scout radiography for detecting ureteral stones in patients with ureterolithiasis diagnosed on unenhanced CT.

Authors:  G Chu; A T Rosenfield; K Anderson; L Scout; R C Smith
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Can computed tomography scout radiography replace plain film in the evaluation of patients with acute urinary tract colic?

Authors:  G Ege; H Akman; K Kuzucu; S Yildiz
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 1.990

3.  Urolithiasis. A study of its frequency.

Authors:  A Norlin; B Lindell; P O Granberg; N Lindvall
Journal:  Scand J Urol Nephrol       Date:  1976

4.  The value of unenhanced helical computerized tomography in the management of acute flank pain.

Authors:  N C Dalrymple; M Verga; K R Anderson; P Bove; A M Covey; A T Rosenfield; R C Smith
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Plain abdominal x-ray versus computerized tomography screening: sensitivity for stone localization after nonenhanced spiral computerized tomography.

Authors:  S V Jackman; S R Potter; F Regan; T W Jarrett
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Sensitivity of CT scout radiography and abdominal radiography for revealing ureteral calculi on helical CT: implications for radiologic follow-up.

Authors:  Z Assi; J F Platt; I R Francis; R H Cohan; M Korobkin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  In vivo determination of urinary stone composition using dual energy computerized tomography with advanced post-acquisition processing.

Authors:  D E Zilberman; M N Ferrandino; G M Preminger; E K Paulson; M E Lipkin; D T Boll
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-10-16       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007.

Authors:  Amy Berrington de González; Mahadevappa Mahesh; Kwang-Pyo Kim; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca Lewis; Fred Mettler; Charles Land
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2009-12-14

9.  Renal stone epidemiology: a 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota.

Authors:  C M Johnson; D M Wilson; W M O'Fallon; R S Malek; L T Kurland
Journal:  Kidney Int       Date:  1979-11       Impact factor: 10.612

10.  Comparison of kidney-ureter-bladder abdominal radiography and computed tomography scout films for identifying renal calculi.

Authors:  Richard Johnston; Anthony Lin; Jason Du; Stephen Mark
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  1 in total

1.  Using a three-dimensional computer assisted stone volume estimates to evaluate extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy treatment of kidney stones.

Authors:  Lene Hyldgaard Bigum; Peter Sommer Ulriksen; Omar Salah Omar
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.436

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.