OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether coronal maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reformations improve urinary tract stone detection and density measurements compared with routine axial and coronal images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent MDCT for suspected urolithiasis were included. Two radiologists independently determined the number of stones on 5-, 3-, and 1.25-mm axial, 5- and 3-mm coronal, and 5-mm coronal MIP images. The reference standard was obtained by consensus review using all six datasets. Stone density was determined for all calculi 4 mm or larger on all datasets. RESULTS: There were a total of 115 stones. Reader 1 identified 111 (96.5%), 112 (97.4%), 97 (84.3%), 102 (88.7%), 99 (86.1%), and 85 (73.9%) stones and reader 2 identified 105 (91.3%), 102 (88.7%), 85 (73.9%), 89 (77.4%), 89 (77.4%), and 76 (66.1%) stones on the MIP, 1.25-mm axial, 3-mm axial, 3-mm coronal, 5-mm coronal, and 5-mm axial images, respectively. Both readers identified more stones on the MIP images than on the 3- or 5-mm axial or coronal images (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in stone attenuation compared with the thin axial images was significantly less for the MIP images (44.6 HU) compared with 3-mm axial (235 HU), 3-mm coronal (309 HU), and 5-mm coronal (329.6 HU) or axial images (347.8 HU) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Coronal MIP reformations allow more accurate identification and density measurements of urinary tract stones compared with routine axial and coronal reformations.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether coronal maximum-intensity-projection (MIP) reformations improve urinary tract stone detection and density measurements compared with routine axial and coronal images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five consecutive patients who underwent MDCT for suspected urolithiasis were included. Two radiologists independently determined the number of stones on 5-, 3-, and 1.25-mm axial, 5- and 3-mm coronal, and 5-mm coronal MIP images. The reference standard was obtained by consensus review using all six datasets. Stone density was determined for all calculi 4 mm or larger on all datasets. RESULTS: There were a total of 115 stones. Reader 1 identified 111 (96.5%), 112 (97.4%), 97 (84.3%), 102 (88.7%), 99 (86.1%), and 85 (73.9%) stones and reader 2 identified 105 (91.3%), 102 (88.7%), 85 (73.9%), 89 (77.4%), 89 (77.4%), and 76 (66.1%) stones on the MIP, 1.25-mm axial, 3-mm axial, 3-mm coronal, 5-mm coronal, and 5-mm axial images, respectively. Both readers identified more stones on the MIP images than on the 3- or 5-mm axial or coronal images (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in stone attenuation compared with the thin axial images was significantly less for the MIP images (44.6 HU) compared with 3-mm axial (235 HU), 3-mm coronal (309 HU), and 5-mm coronal (329.6 HU) or axial images (347.8 HU) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Coronal MIP reformations allow more accurate identification and density measurements of urinary tract stones compared with routine axial and coronal reformations.
Authors: P Fritzsche; E S Amis; L R Bigongiari; E I Bluth; W H Bush; P L Choyke; L Holder; J H Newhouse; C M Sandler; A J Segal; M I Resnick; E A Rutsky Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sean McAdams; Nicholas Kim; Daniel Dajusta; Manoj Monga; Indupur R Ravish; Rajendra Nerli; Linda Baker; Aseem R Shukla Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-08-21 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexandra E Perks; Trevor D Schuler; Jason Lee; Daniela Ghiculete; Dae-Gyun Chung; R John D'A Honey; Kenneth T Pace Journal: Urology Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Mazda Memarsadeghi; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Mathias Prokop; Thomas H Helbich; Christian C Seitz; Iris M Noebauer-Huhmann; Gertraud Heinz-Peer Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.959