Literature DB >> 23913111

Lithiasis size estimation variability depending on image technical methodology.

Enrique Argüelles Salido1, Jesús Aguilar García, Jose María Lozano-Blasco, Jorge Subirá Rios, Pastora Beardo Villar, Pedro Campoy-Martínez, Rafael A Medina-López.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The lithiasic size is a determining factor in selecting the most suitable treatment, surgical or medical. However, the method for obtaining a reliable lithiasic size is not standardized. Our objetives are to determine the differences between the estimated lithiasic sizes shown by plain radiography test and by computerized axial tomography (CT) scan (using different techniques) in relation to the actual size, and to establish which is the ideal type of imaging for this purpose. We present an in vitro model with lithiasis obtained in cooperation with four centers. INCLUSION CRITERIA: lithiasis >0.5 cm, intact, and visible via simple radiography. A sample of 245 lithiases was obtained, with 87 rejected as they did not fulfill the inclusion criteria. Initially the three main actual diameters of each lithiasis were measured with a calibrator, then a plain X-ray and a CT scan were taken of the samples to determine the surface size in cm(2) for simple radiography; surface size and volume in cm(3) for CT scan, in bone window and soft tissue (Toshiba Aquillion 64, sections of 0.5 mm, 120 Kv, 250 mA). The tomographic area was calculated by employing the formula recommended by the European Association of Urology and scanner software. The actual, radiographic and tomographic measurements were taken by three different researchers who were unaware of the results obtained by the each other. The statistics program IBM SPSS Statistics(®) 19 was used. Differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon sign test. The bone window CT scan slightly overestimated the actual lithiasic size (0.12 vs. 0.17 cm(3)), while in soft tissue window the actual volume was practically doubled (0.12 vs. 0.21 cm(3)) (p < 0.05). We did not find statistically significant differences in the comparison between actual surface size (0.39 cm(2)) and bone window CT scan size when using the EAU formula or scanner software (0.36/0.37 cm(2)). Resulting measurements in soft tissue window tended to significantly overestimate the surface size, although only slightly (0.42/0.44 cm(2)), whilst the plain radiography underestimated it slightly but significantly (0.37 cm(2)). CT scan, using the bone window, is the technical methodology with which the greatest in vitro accuracy in which actual lithiasis measurements can be estimated, although the craniocaudal diameter measurement will be overestimated. Using soft tissue window gives an overestimated size.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23913111     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-013-0597-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urolithiasis        ISSN: 2194-7228            Impact factor:   3.436


  13 in total

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

Authors:  Narendra Narepalem; Chandru P Sundaram; Illya C Boridy; Yan Yan; Jay P Heiken; Ralph V Clayman
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Coronal imaging to assess urinary tract stone size.

Authors:  Robert B Nadler; Jeffrey A Stern; Simon Kimm; Frederick Hoff; Alfred W Rademaker
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 3.  Evaluating the definition of "stone free status" in contemporary urologic literature.

Authors:  L A Deters; C M Jumper; P L Steinberg; V M Pais
Journal:  Clin Nephrol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 0.975

4.  Accuracy of detection and measurement of renal calculi: in vitro comparison of three-dimensional spiral CT, radiography, and nephrotomography.

Authors:  E W Olcott; F G Sommer; S Napel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Renal tract calculi: comparison of stone size on plain radiography and noncontrast spiral CT scan.

Authors:  Philip Dundee; David Bouchier-Hayes; Hodo Haxhimolla; Richard Dowling; Anthony Costello
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 2.942

6.  Automated renal stone volume measurement by noncontrast computerized tomography is more reproducible than manual linear size measurement.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; Paul Stanton; Nathan Zelinski; Edward J Borman; Myron A Pozniak; Stephen Y Nakada; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-10-20       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 7.  Quantification of preoperative stone burden for ureteroscopy and shock wave lithotripsy: current state and future recommendations.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2011-02-05       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi.

Authors:  A Andrew Ray; Daniela Ghiculete; Kenneth T Pace; R John D'A Honey
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2010-03-05       Impact factor: 2.649

9.  Heterogeneity in the reporting of disease characteristics and treatment outcomes in studies evaluating treatments for nephrolithiasis.

Authors:  Elias S Hyams; Aron Bruhn; Michael Lipkin; Ojas Shah
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 2.942

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

Authors:  Brian H Eisner; Avinash Kambadakone; Manoj Monga; James K Anderson; Andrew A Thoreson; Hang Lee; Stephen P Dretler; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-02-23       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

2.  Computed tomography window affects kidney stones measurements.

Authors:  Alexandre Danilovic; Bruno Aragão Rocha; Giovanni Scala Marchini; Olivier Traxer; Carlos Batagello; Fabio Carvalho Vicentini; Fábio César Miranda Torricelli; Miguel Srougi; William Carlos Nahas; Eduardo Mazzucchi
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2019 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.050

3.  Influence of a Deep Learning Noise Reduction on the CT Values, Image Noise and Characterization of Kidney and Ureter Stones.

Authors:  Andrea Steuwe; Birte Valentin; Oliver T Bethge; Alexandra Ljimani; Günter Niegisch; Gerald Antoch; Joel Aissa
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-05

4.  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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.