Literature DB >> 25820292

The hounsfield unit value calculated with the aid of non-contrast computed tomography and its effect on the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.

Alper Gok1, Haci Polat, Ali Cift, Mehmet Ozgur Yucel, Bahri Gok, Mehmet Sirik, Can Benlioglu, Bedreddin Kalyenci.   

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of the Hounsfield unit (HU) value, calculated with the aid of non-contrast computed tomography, on the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Data for 83 patients evaluated in our clinic between November 2011 and February 2014 that had similar stone sizes, localizations, and radio opacities were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were grouped according to their HU value, in a low HU group (HU ≤ 1000) or a high HU group (HU > 1000). The two groups were compared based on their PCNL success rates, complications, duration of surgery, duration of fluoroscopy, and decrease in the hematocrit. There were no significant differences in terms of mean age, female-male ratio, or mean body mass index between the two groups (p > 0.05). The stone size and stone surface area did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.820 and p = 0.394, respectively). The unsuccessful PCNL rate and the prevalence of complications did not differ significantly between the two groups (p > 0.05). The duration of surgery, duration of fluoroscopy, and decrease in the hematocrit were significantly greater in the high HU group compared to the low HU group (p < 0.001). Calculating the HU value using this imaging method may predict cases with longer surgery durations, longer fluoroscopy durations, and greater decreases in hematocrite levels, but this value is not related to the success rate of PCNL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25820292     DOI: 10.1007/s00240-015-0766-4

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


  19 in total

1.  Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography.

Authors:  Gyan Pareek; Sean P Hedican; Fred T Lee; Stephen Y Nakada
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.649

2.  Adequacy of physician documentation of red blood cell transfusion and correlation with assessment of transfusion appropriateness.

Authors:  Mark T Friedman; Amber Ebrahim
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 5.534

3.  Factors affecting the success rate of percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and the incidence of retained fragments.

Authors:  B Goldwasser; J L Weinerth; C C Carson; N R Dunnick
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Does the Hounsfield unit value determined by computed tomography predict the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Adnan Gücük; Uğur Uyetürk; Ufuk Oztürk; Eray Kemahli; Mevlüt Yildiz; Ahmet Metin
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2012-02-10       Impact factor: 2.942

5.  How do increasing stone surface area and stone configuration affect overall outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Burak Turna; Mehmet Umul; Serkan Demiryoguran; Baris Altay; Oktay Nazli
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.942

Review 6.  Percutaneous nephrolithotomy and its legacy.

Authors:  A Skolarikos; G Alivizatos; J J M C H de la Rosette
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 20.096

7.  Percutaneous removal of kidney stones: review of 1,000 cases.

Authors:  J W Segura; D E Patterson; A J LeRoy; H J Williams; D M Barrett; R C Benson; G R May; C E Bender
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 7.450

8.  Does previous open nephrolithotomy affect the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy?

Authors:  Mustafa Sofikerim; Deniz Demirci; Ibrahim Gülmez; Mustafa Karacagil
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.942

9.  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

10.  Computerized tomography attenuation value of renal calculus: can it predict successful fragmentation of the calculus by extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A preliminary study.

Authors:  Peter Joseph; A K Mandal; S K Singh; Purabi Mandal; S N Sankhwar; S K Sharma
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

View more
  4 in total

1.  Renal stone composition does not affect the outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children.

Authors:  Onur Kaygısız; Fethi Ahmet Türegün; Nihat Satar; Ender Özen; Serdar Toksöz; Hasan Serkan Doğan; Mehmet Mesut Pişkin; Volkan İzol; Şaban Sarıkaya; Hakan Kılıçarslan; Tufan Çiçek; Ahmet Öztürk; Serdar Tekgül; Bülent Önal
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-05-14       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  How practical is the application of percutaneous nephrolithotomy scoring systems? Prospective study comparing Guy's Stone Score, S.T.O.N.E. score and the Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) nomogram.

Authors:  Anurag Singla; Nikhil Khattar; Rishi Nayyar; Shibani Mehra; Hemant Goel; Rajeev Sood
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2017-01-12

3.  The Relationship Between Renal Stones and Primary Aldosteronism.

Authors:  Chun-Kai Chang; Chin-Chen Chang; Vin-Cent Wu; Jiun-Hung Geng; Hsiang-Ying Lee
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 5.555

Review 4.  Radiomics in Urolithiasis: Systematic Review of Current Applications, Limitations, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Ee Jean Lim; Daniele Castellani; Wei Zheng So; Khi Yung Fong; Jing Qiu Li; Ho Yee Tiong; Nariman Gadzhiev; Chin Tiong Heng; Jeremy Yuen-Chun Teoh; Nithesh Naik; Khurshid Ghani; Kemal Sarica; Jean De La Rosette; Bhaskar Somani; Vineet Gauhar
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 4.964

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.