Literature DB >> 25139151

Evaluation of Hounsfield Units as a predictive factor for the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and stone composition.

Takehiko Nakasato1, Jun Morita, Yoshio Ogawa.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of the Hounsfield Unit (HU) values as a predictive factor of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcome for ureteral and renal stones. We also assessed the possibility that HU values could be used to predict stone composition. A retrospective study was performed to measure stone HU values in 260 patients who underwent extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for solitary renal and ureteral stones from July 2007 to January 2012. Stone volume, location, skin-to-stone distance, stone HU values, and stone composition were assessed. Success of ESWL was defined as: (1) being stone-free or (2) residual stone fragments <4 mm after 3 months by radiography. Of the 260 assessed patients, 141 (54.2%) were stone-free, 32 (12.3%) had residual stone fragments <4 mm (clinically insignificant stone fragments), and 87 (33.5%) had residual stone fragments ≥4 mm after one round of ESWL. Multivariate analysis revealed that stone location and mean HU were significant predictors of ESWL success. Receiver operating characteristic curves defined cutoff values for predicting treatment outcome. Treatment success rates were significantly higher for stones <815 HU than with stones >815 HU (P < 0.0265). HU of calcium oxalate and calcium phosphate stones were higher than those of uric acid stones, but we could not differentiate between calcium oxalate monohydrate and calcium oxalate dihydrate stones. Evaluation of stone HU values prior to ESWL can predict treatment outcome and aid in the development of treatment strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25139151     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-014-0712-x

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


  28 in total

1.  Hounsfield unit density in the determination of urinary stone composition.

Authors:  G Motley; N Dalrymple; C Keesling; J Fischer; W Harmon
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  The efficacy of non-contrast helical computed tomography in the prediction of urinary stone composition in vivo.

Authors:  A Demirel; S Suma
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.671

3.  Diagnosis of acute flank pain caused by ureteral stones: value of combined direct and indirect signs on IVU and unenhanced helical CT.

Authors:  Li-Jen Wang; Chip-Jin Ng; Jih-Chang Chen; Te-Fa Chiu; Yon-Cheong Wong
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-04-02       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Non-contrast spiral CT for patients with suspected renal colic.

Authors:  D S Katz; M J Lane; F G Sommer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  A 970 Hounsfield units (HU) threshold of kidney stone density on non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) improves patients' selection for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL): evidence from a prospective study.

Authors:  Idir Ouzaid; Said Al-qahtani; Sébastien Dominique; Vincent Hupertan; Pédro Fernandez; Jean-François Hermieu; Vincent Delmas; Vincent Ravery
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2012-02-28       Impact factor: 5.588

Review 6.  A comprehensive update on urinary tract lithiasis management.

Authors:  A Bourdoumis; A Miernik; A Hawizy; S Kachrilas; M El Howairis; M Schoenthaler; J Masood; N Buchholz
Journal:  Panminerva Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.197

7.  Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less.

Authors:  Margaret S Pearle; James E Lingeman; Raymond Leveillee; Ramsay Kuo; Glenn M Preminger; Robert B Nadler; Joseph Macaluso; Manoj Monga; Udaya Kumar; John Dushinski; David M Albala; J Stuart Wolf; Dean Assimos; Michael Fabrizio; Larry C Munch; Stephen Y Nakada; Brian Auge; John Honey; Kenneth Ogan; John Pattaras; Elspeth M McDougall; Timothy D Averch; Thomas Turk; Paul Pietrow; Stephanie Watkins
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Hounsfield units on computed tomography predict calcium stone subtype composition.

Authors:  Sutchin R Patel; George Haleblian; August Zabbo; Gyan Pareek
Journal:  Urol Int       Date:  2009-09-10       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Extracorporeally induced destruction of kidney stones by shock waves.

Authors:  C Chaussy; W Brendel; E Schmiedt
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1980-12-13       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.

Authors:  Gaurav Bandi; Ryan J Meiners; Perry J Pickhardt; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 5.588

View more
  13 in total

1.  Predictive value of low tube voltage and dual-energy CT for successful shock wave lithotripsy: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Remo Largo; Paul Stolzmann; Christian D Fankhauser; Cédric Poyet; Pirmin Wolfsgruber; Tullio Sulser; Hatem Alkadhi; Sebastian Winklhofer
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.436

2.  Single session vs two sessions of flexible ureterosopy (FURS) for dusting of renal pelvic stones 2-3 cm in diameter: Does stone size or hardness play a role in number of sessions to be applied?"

Authors:  Ahmed Mamdouh Abd El Hamed; Hazem Elmoghazy; Mohamed Aldahshoury; Ahmed Riad; Mohammed Mostafa; Fawzy Farag; Wael Gamal
Journal:  Turk J Urol       Date:  2017-05-03

3.  How to determine the treatment options for lower-pole renal stones.

Authors:  Bum Soo Kim
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2016-08

4.  CT-calculometry (CT-CM): advanced NCCT post-processing to investigate urinary calculi.

Authors:  Valentin Zumstein; Patrick Betschart; Lukas Hechelhammer; Hans-Peter Schmid; Dominik Abt; Magdalena Müller-Gerbl
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Simple and practical nomograms for predicting the stone-free rate after shock wave lithotripsy in patients with a solitary upper ureteral stone.

Authors:  Naoya Niwa; Kazuhiro Matsumoto; Makoto Miyahara; Minami Omura; Hiroaki Kobayashi; Eiji Kikuchi; Akira Miyajima; Kazutoyo Miyata; Mototsugu Oya
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Furosemide improves the stone clearance rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for kidney stones but not ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Feng Yao; Ke Li; ShiQuan Huang; XueSong Cheng; XiaoLiang Jiang
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-10-15

7.  Role of Stone Heterogeneity Index in Determining Success of Shock Wave Lithotripsy in Urinary Calculi.

Authors:  Nadeem Iqbal; Aisha Hasan; Ahsan Nazar; Sajid Iqbal; Mohammad Haroon Hassan; Behzad Saeed Gill; Rabiyya Khan; Saeed Akhter; Rodrigo Suarez-Ibarrola
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-03-24

8.  How do stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance in computed tomography influence the performance of shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stone disease?

Authors:  Gautier Müllhaupt; Daniel S Engeler; Hans-Peter Schmid; Dominik Abt
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.264

9.  Can a dual-energy computed tomography predict unsuitable stone components for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy?

Authors:  Sung Hoon Ahn; Tae Hoon Oh; Ill Young Seo
Journal:  Korean J Urol       Date:  2015-09-08

10.  Usefulness of measuring renal papillae in Hounsfield units in stone - forming patients.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Arrabal-Polo; Maria Del Carmen Cano-Garcia; Juan Esteban Huerta-Brunel; Guillermo Hidalgo-Agullo; Luis Roletto-Salmo; Miguel Arrabal-Martín
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 1.541

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.